Lok Sabha Debates
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ink 8«i«. Vol. WX-N., « .7. i^rahayana 6, 19M (8aka) LOK SABHA DEBATES (Sixth SMtfoa) (Vol. XIX contains N a XOK SABHA SBCRETA N EW D ELH I Print Ms* 4»oa CONTENTS (Sizth Series, Volume XIX, Sixth Session 1978) No. 6, Monday, November 27, igj^lAgrahayana 6, 1900 (Saka) Oral Answers to Questions: Columns ♦Starred Questions Nos. loi, 102, 104, 105, 108, 109, 113 and 114 ...................................................................... I — 31 Written Answers to Questions : Starred Questions Nos. 103, 106, roy, n o , 111 and 115 to 1 2 0 ................................................................• . • 31—44 Unstarred Questions Nos. 986 to 1 122, 1124 to 1181 and i i 8 3 t o i i 85 ................................................................4 4 — 253 Papers laid on the Table 254— 56 Messages from Rajya Sabha 256 Calling Attention to Matter of Urgent Public Importance— Reported shortage of coal in many parts of the country . 257 Shri Harikesh Bahadur 257, 260—6j Shri P. Ramachandran 257—60, 261— 62,265— 66 Shri Chitta Basu . 263— 65 Shri Vijay Kumar Malhotra. 266— 67 Statement re: Establishment of rateofexchangebetweenthc Indian rupee and the rouble— Shri H. M. Patel 268— 71 Sugar Undertakings (Taking Over ot Management) Bill— Motion to introduce 272— 73 Shri Surjit Singh Barnala 272, 273 Shri Eduardo Faleiro 272 Statement re: Sugar Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Ordinance, 1978-— Shri Surjit Singh Bamala . 273 *The sign + marked above the name of a Member indicates that the question was actually asked on the floor of the House by that Member. (“) Matters under rule 377 . Columns (i) Reported low price fixed by the Government for paddy— Shri p. Rajagopal N a id u ..................................................... 273— 74 (ii) Reported encroachment by Bangladesh nationals on reserved land in Barpeta sub-division of Assam— Shri Ismail Hossain Khan 274— 75 (iii) Sharp spurt in money supply in the current financial year— Dr. Vasant Kumar Pandit . 275 (iv) RepoHed hardship of salt labourers in Surendranagar dis trict of Gujarat due to untimely rains— Prof. R. K. Amin 275— 77 (v) Need for construction ot a broad gauge railway line from Emakulam to Alleppey (Kerala)-— Shri V. M. Sudheeeran 277— 79 Prof . Madhu D a n d a v a t e ........................................... 279— 80 Employment of ch ildren (Amendment) Bill— Motion to consider, as passed by Rajya Sabha— Shri B. C. Kamble . 281— 82 Shri Kusuma Krishna Murthy 282— 85 Shri Ravindra Varma 2 8 5 - 9 8 Clauses 2 to 5 and i . 2 98— 303 Motion to pass— Shri Ravindra Varma . 303 Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill— Motion to consider .... 303— 50 Shri Chand Ram 304— 307 Shri R. Venkataraman 3 0 7 - 1 6 Shri Shambhu Nath Chaturvedi .... 316— 20 Shri Vayalar Ravi . , . 320— 24 (Hi; Columns Shri Bhagat Ram . ?27— 329 Sh ri R. L. P. Verma 329— 30 Shri P. Thiagarajan 330— 33 % Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan . 333—34 Shri K. A. Rajan . 335— 36 Shri Laxmi Narain Nayak . 337— 38 Shri G. M. Banatwalla ■ 338— 41 Shri Ram Murti 342— 46 Shri B. C. Kamblc 346— 48 Shri Durga Chand 348 50 Hall-an-hour discussion— Implementation ol Land Ceiling Act by the Statcs- Shri A. R. Badri Narayan 351— 53 Shri Sikandar Bakht 353— 55 Shri Giridhar Gomango . 355— 56 Shri Jyotirmoy Bosu 35« —5 8 LOK SABHA DEBATES LOK SABHA 3 jhuggis and 2 boundary walls were demolished on 21st November, 1978, as these were reconstructions. Monday, November 27, 1978/Agraha- (b) These were not only unauthori yana 6, 1900 {Saka) sed construction of a very recent origin but also encroachments on The Lok Sabha met at Eleven of Government land. No assurance had the Clock been given that these will not be demolished. SHRI EDUARDO FALEIRO: The [M r. S pe a k e r in the Chair]. statement that has been made by the hon. Minister in his reply contains a ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS lot of incorrect information and is evasive in many aspects. Firstly, I would like him 1o admit these facts Demolitions in Toghlakabad, Delhi viz., that he had given an assurance in June 1977 that constructions upto ♦101. SHRI EDUARDO FALEIRO: the end of that month will not be de Will the Minister of WORKS AND molished, that about 1000 houses have HOUSING AND SUPPLY AND RE been demolished, that no notice at all HABILITATION be pleased to state: was given, about 141 of these house owners were paying house'-tax, most (a) whether Government are aware of them had ration cards and owner of demolition operations carried out ship documents, the construction was by DDA recently during which more on private land; in eight cases the than one thousand pucca houses at houses were demolished inspite of the Tughlakabad Extension were razed stay order of the High Court. It is to ground inspite of resistance of its better for him to admit all these facts owners who were legally in their because I am producing documents occupation; and here—a demand note asking for pay ment of rent dated 1st April 1976 for (b) if so, what were the specific one person in this area occupying reasons which led Government and House No. RZ /68 in Tughlakabad Ex the DDA to take such action despite tension and the name of the man is assurances that those constructions Ram Balak, his residential house has would not be demolished? been demolished, his ownership docu ment is here. Then there is also a notification of the Executive Officer of THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND DDA concerning regularisation of un HOUSING AND J5UPPLY AND RE authorised colonies. With reference to HABILITATION (SHRI SIKANDAR this particular colony, this colony is BAKHT): (a) Delhi Development not covered by DDA; so, it is a private Authority demolished 282 structures land. Finally, there is a stay order comprising largely boundary walls granted by the Chief Justice of the and semi pucca units illegally put up Delhi High Court, hon. Justice Go- on Government land after 17th Dece swami in the case of Suresh Kumar vs. mber, 1977. Besides these, 10 rooms, DDA and others, where a stay order 3131 LS— 1 Oral Answers NOVEMBER 27, 1978 Oral Answers was granted not to demolish the con gation I would like to say this struction on 24th October 1978. Inspite much. Will the hon. Minister make full of tiie stayorder of the High Court, compensation in case it is provided to these constructions were demolished, him that houses which existed before I would like the Minister to admit all June 1977 were demolished? Will he these facts before the House and apo allow them to be reconstructed? The logise to this House and to say why second part of the question is, will the these utterly brutal and inhuman acts hon. Minister assure this House that no which have exceeded in brutality the further demolitions at all will be car notorious episode of Turkman Gate ried out in Delhi without first having have been committed by the Govern a complete resettlement and rehabili ment. ' ll tation scheme? SHRI SIKANDAR BAKHT; I am here to answer questions and not to SHRI SIKANDAR BAKHT; I have make admissions and apologies to the made it very clear and I have never been vague about making statements hon. Member. about these things that all those stru AN HON. MEMBER: To the House. ctures which have come up after 30th SHRI SIKANDAR BAKHT: All June, 1977 on Government lands, right to the House. Of course, apolo which are encroachments and which gies to the House will alwa> s be given are unauthorised constructions will if there is a mistake. Unfortunately be demolished and will not be tolerat the hon. Member seems to have asked ed. There is no question of vagueness his question in a manner that certain about it and, of course, whatever figu answers were not called for at all. res I have given, I have given them 'Everything that he has stated just on obtaining information from the now, if he has asked these questions Corporation as well as the D.D.A. and with regard to those specific instances, I believe they are absolutely correct. I would have been very happy to ans- were those questions. He says, whether DR. SARDISH ROY: Of these de the Government are aware of the de molished houses, some of them are as molition operations carried out by the sessed by the Municipal Corporation. DDA. I have given all the details and Demolition is done both by the D.D.A. figures with regard to the demoli and the Municipal Corporation. May I tions by the DDA. There have been know from the Hon’ble Minister whe demolition notifications by the MCD ther it is not a fact that some of them in this area also, jn this regard, in have at least got documents, legal do the statement of the Chairman of the cuments, for the purchase of the land Standing Committee—unfortunately, and the D. D. A. in its letter issued the hon. Member does not seem to some time back have stated “this area have either read his statement or it does not fall within the development has not been brought to his notice— area of D. D. A.”? This letter was is he has made it very clear that there sued some time in July, 1978 and they is no doubt that there were houses and have stated that this area does not fall there still are houses where house tax within the development area of the was paid, but none of them were" de D.