[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Arun Das vs Delhi Developemnt Authority & Anr on 30 May, 2025
Author: Dharmesh Sharma
Bench: Dharmesh Sharma
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement reserved on: 14 May 2025
Judgement pronounced on: 30 May 2025
+ W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & CM APPL. 10752/2023
ARUN DAS ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dilraj Singh Bhinder, Mr.
Sujoy Chatterjee, Mr.
Priyadarshi Banerjee, Ms.
Kavya Agrawal and Mr.
Rishabh, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
.Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Mr.
Harshita Maheshwari, Ms.
Richa Dhawan and Mr. Pawan
Karan Deo, Advs. for DUSIB.
Ms. Kritika Gupta and Ms.
Kamakshi Sehgal, Advs. for
DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 2352/2023 & CM APPL. 8998/2023
MANGAL KARAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shantanu, Adv.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
.Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms.
Harshita Maheswari and Ms.
Richa Dhawan, Mr. Rishi Kant
Singh and Mr. Manoj Jadly,
Advs. for DUSIB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 1 of 46
17:09:51
Ms. Chand Chopra, Ms. Kritika
Gupta, and Ms. Nehal
Bhupatiraju, Advs. for DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 9038/2023
RAHUL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Ms.
Prerna Tandon and Mr. Harshit
S. Gahlot, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rishi Kant Singh, Adv. For
DUSIB.
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Ms. Chand
Chopra and Ms. Neha, Advs.
for DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 6291/2023
KASHMIR LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Ms.
Prerna Tandon and Ms. Kanika
Rathore and Mr. Mayank
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rishi Kant Singh and Mr.
Manoj Jadly, Advs. for DUSIB.
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Ms. Chand
Chopra and Ms. Neha
Bhupatiraju, Advs. for DDA.
+ W.P.(C) 11015/2023
MITHLESH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kaoliangpou Kamei and
Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 2 of 46
17:09:51
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rishi Kant Singh and Mr.
Manoj Jadly, Advs. for DUSIB.
Ms. Kritika Gupta, Ms. Chand
Chopra and Ms. Neha
Bhupatiraju, Advs. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
JUDGMENT
1. This common judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned
petitions, which have been filed by groups of petitioners, in each case,
either individually or jointly, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The
petitioners herein seek common reliefs, including a direction towards
DDA 1 to suspend any further demolition activity, maintain status quo
at the site, and refrain from physically evicting the petitioners from
their respective jhuggi jhodris clusters, The petitioners also seek a
direction to DUSIB2 to conduct a proper and comprehensive survey of
the affected residents and rehabilitate them in accordance with Delhi
Slum & Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 3.
2. The issues raised by the petitioners involve common questions
of law arising from somewhat similar facts and circumstances. It has
been acknowledged at the Bar by the learned counsel for the
respective parties that the present matters pertain to two categories of
cases: (i) where the appeals of the petitioners have been rejected on
1 Delhi Development Authority
2 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
3 2015 Policy
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 3 of 46
17:09:51
the ground that the respective jhuggi dwellers had not attained the
age of majority as on the cut-off date i.e., 01.01.2015; and (ii) where
the appeals of the petitioners have been rejected by the Appellate
Authority on the ground that the respective jhuggi dwellers were
found to be used exclusively for commercial activities in their jhuggis
at the time of the survey, which was conducted in October 2019.
3. For the purposes of adjudication, qua the petitioners who were
minors as on the cut-off date, i.e., 01.01.2015, W.P.(C) No.
2785/2023, titled Arun Das v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.,
has been treated as the lead matter. Qua the petitioners whose appeals
were rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the
subject jhuggis were being utilized solely for commercial purposes at
the time of the survey, W.P.(C) No. 6291/2023, titled Kashmir Lal v.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., has been taken as the lead case.
The particulars of the petitioners in the lead matters, as also in the
other connected writ petitions forming part of this batch, are
delineated in the tabular chart reproduced hereinbelow: –
Table No. 1: – List of petitions and 6 petitioners, who were
minors as on the cut-off date, i.e., 01.01.2015.
S. No. W.P.(C) Petitioner No. & Name
1. W.P.(C) 2785/2023 Petitioner = Arun Das, Son of Pradeep Das,
[1 petitioner] Resident of Jhuggi No. A-331, Bhoomiheen
Camo, Kalkaji. South Delhi – 110019.
2. W.P.(C) 2352/2023 Petitioner = Mangal Karan, Son of Lakhan Karan,
[1 petitioner] Resident of Jhuggi No. B-656G/G, Bhoomiheen
Camp, Kalkaji, South Delhi – 110019.
3. W.P.(C) 9038/2023 Petitioner = Rahul, Son of Late Sh. Om Prakash,
[1 petitioner] Resident of Jhuggi No. B-343, Bhoomiheen
Camp, Kalkaji, South Delhi -110019Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 4 of 46
17:09:51
Table No. 2: – Details of petitions and 8 petitioners, whose
appeals were rejected by the Appellate Authority on the
ground that the subject jhuggis were being utilized solely for
commercial purposes at the time of the survey.
S. W.P.(C) Petitioner No. & Name
No.
1. W.P.(C) 6291/2023 Petitioner = Kashmir Lal, Son of Ram Singh,
[1 petitioner] Resident of Jhuggi No. B-300, Bhoomiheen Camp,
Kalkaji South Delhi-110019.
2. W.P.(C) 11015/2023 Petitioner = Mithlesh, Wife of Jagdish, Resident of
[1 petitioner] Jhuggi No. D-152, Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji
South Delhi-110019.
BACKGROUND
4. Briefly stated, W.P.(C) No. 2785/2023 has been instituted by
the petitioner who, as per Paragraph 1(i)4 of Part B of the 2015 Policy,
had not attained the age of majority as on the cut-off date, i.e.,
01.01.2015; whereas, W.P.(C) 6291/2023 has been preferred by the
petitioner whose claim came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority
on the ground that the subject jhuggi was found to be used solely for
commercial activities, which is in contravention of Paragraph 1 (viii) 5
of Part B of the 2015 Policy. T
5. The common thread in both sets of petitions is that the
petitioners, along with their respective family members, have claimed
that they have been in continuous possession and occupation of their
respective jhuggi-jhopris situated at a location commonly known as
Bhoomiheen Camp, Govind Puri, Kalkaji, South Delhi – 110019,
which is averred to be in existence since the early 1990s. The
4 1.(i) The JJ dweller must be a citizen of India and not less than 18 years of age.
5 1. (viii) No dwelling uniy shall be allotted of the jhuggi is used solely for commercial
purpose.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 5 of 46
17:09:51
petitioners claim to be migrants from various States, including Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal, and are stated to be engaged in
occupations such as factory labour, work at local shops, domestic
help, and other forms of menial employment.
6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the proposed demolition
of their jhuggi-jhopris by the DDA is arbitrary, illegal, and in
contravention of the provisions of the 2015 Policy. It is contended that
the said Policy contemplates in-situ rehabilitation of eligible jhuggi
dwellers and lays down a comprehensive framework prescribing the
procedure and criteria for determining such eligibility. The petitioners
further assert that the 2015 Policy is a welfare-oriented measure
framed with the objective of securing socio-economic justice for
persons belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections 6 of society,
and seeks to ensure their rehabilitation through the provision of
alternative housing by the State in a structured and equitable manner.
7. The petitioners further contend that the DUSIB has been
designated as the nodal agency for the implementation of the 2015
Policy, which unequivocally provides that JJ 7 bastis/camps that came
into existence prior to 01.01.2006 shall not be subjected to demolition
without the provision of alternative housing. It is further submitted
that, in order to qualify for rehabilitation under the said Policy, the
cut-off date for residence in the concerned jhuggi is stipulated as
01.01.2015.
8. Reference is drawn to Part B of the 2015 Policy, which
6 EWS
7 Jhuggi Jhopri
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 6 of 46
17:09:51
prescribes that a JJ dweller is required to furnish any one of twelve
specified documents, issued prior to the cut-off date of 01.01.2015, as
proof of eligibility. These documents include:
(i) Passport;
(ii) Ration Card with photograph;
(iii) Electricity bill;
(iv) Driving license;
(v) Identity Card/Smart Card with photograph issued by a
State/Central Government department or its autonomous
bodies/agencies, such as PSUs or local bodies (excluding
Electoral Photo Identity Card);
(vi) Passbook with photograph issued by a public sector bank
or post office;
(vii) SC/ST/OBC certificate issued by the competent
authority;
(viii) Pension documents with photograph, such as Ex-
Serviceman’s Pension Book, Pension Payment Order,
Ex-Serviceman widow/dependent certificate, old-age
pension order, or widow pension order;
(ix) Freedom Fighter Identity Card with photograph;
(x) Certificate of physical disability with photograph issued
by the competent authority;
(xi) Smart Card with photograph issued under a Health
Insurance Scheme of the Ministry of Labour; and
(xii) Identity card or certificate with photograph issued by a
government school Principal certifying that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 7 of 46
17:09:51
descendant of the JJ dweller is or was a student of the
said school.
9. It is further submitted that Part B of the 2015 Policy lays down
additional eligibility criteria inter alia requiring that: (i) the name of
the JJ dweller must appear in at least one of the electoral rolls of the
years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015, as well as in the electoral roll of the
year in which the survey was conducted; (ii) the name of the JJ
dweller must find mention in the Joint Survey carried out by DUSIB
and the concerned Land-Owning Agency 8; and (iii) the JJ dweller
must possess any one of the twelve prescribed documents issued prior
to the cut-off date of 01.01.2015, among which the Ration Card with
photograph and Electricity Bill are of particular evidentiary value. The
Policy also contemplates that, in cases where a distinct family residing
on the upper floor of a jhuggi possesses a separate ration card issued
prior to 01.01.2015, such family shall also be considered eligible for
allotment of an independent dwelling unit.
10. The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions raise a
twofold grievance. As reflected in Table 1, certain petitioners have
been denied the benefit of rehabilitation and reallotment on the ground
that they were minors as on the cut-off date, i.e., 01.01.2015, and were
therefore held ineligible under the 2015 Policy. In contrast, the
petitioners listed in Table 2 have been declared ineligible on the
premise that their respective jhuggis were being used solely for
commercial purposes at the time of the survey.
11. It is, however, the petitioners’ contention that such rejection is
8 LOA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 8 of 46
17:09:51
flawed in the teeth of Paragraph 1(ix) of Part B of the 2015 Policy,
which categorically provides that: “In case the jhuggi is being used
for both residential and commercial purposes, the JJ dweller can be
considered for allotment of one dwelling unit. In case the ground floor
of the jhuggi is being used for commercial purpose and other floors
for residential purpose, that will entitle the JJ dweller for one
dwelling unit.” Accordingly, it is argued that mere commercial use,
when not to the exclusion of residential use, ought not to disentitle the
petitioner from being considered for rehabilitation.
12. The grievance of the petitioners, both qua those who were
minors on the cut-off date and qua those whose jhuggis were allegedly
used solely for commercial purposes, is that DUSIB has failed to
discharge its statutory obligations under the 2015 Policy. It is
contended that the surveys forming the basis of the impugned
ineligibility determinations were conducted in violation of the
“Protocol 2015,” by an obscure and unaccountable outsourced agency
appointed by DDA.
13. It is further alleged that the DDA, by initiating steps for
demolition of the JJ clusters and proceeding with physical eviction
without affording due process or considering the petitioners’
documentary evidence, is violating their constitutionally protected
right to shelter. Such action is stated to be contrary to Article 19(1)(g),
read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, thereby
compelling the petitioners to seek redress before this Court.
PART - I
REJECTION OF PETITIONERS' APPEALS BY THE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 9 of 46
17:09:51
APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE GROUND OF
MINORITY AS ON THE CUT-OFF DATE
STAND OF DUSIB
14. The DUSIB in its counter affidavit, filed through Mr. Rajeev
Kumar Datta, Deputy, Director, Rehabilitation dated 13.04.2023
instead of offering para-wise reply to the allegations levelled in the
W.P.(C) No. 2785/2023 and reserving their right to file a detailed
counter reply, has taken a stand that although DUSIB is a statutory
Board constituted in terms of provisions contained in DUSIB Act,
2010, which is an enactment of the Legislative Assembly of the
NCTD9, and empowered to prepare a scheme for removal of JJ camps
and resettlement of the residents, has referred to the proviso to sub-
section (3) of Section 10 of the DUSIB Act, 2010, stating that the
land in question where the JJ camps are located, fall under the
jurisdiction of the Central Government & its agencies. It is stated that
the process of removal and the resettlement is to be undertaken with
the prior consent of the Central Government or the concerned
organization. Subsection (3) of Section 10 of the DUSIB Act, 2010 is
reproduced herein below: –
“Removal and resettlemnt of jhuggi jhopri bastis:
10(3) The Board may, after prior consultation with the
Government, cause any jhuggi jhopri basti to be removed and may
resettle such residents thereof as may be eligible in accordance
with the scheme prepared under sub-section (1), and it shall be the
duty of the local authority having jurisdiction and of the police and
of any other agency or department whose assistance the Board
may require to co-operate with and render all reasonable
assistance to the Board:
9 National Capital Territory of Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 10 of 46
17:09:51
Provided that where jhuggi jhopri basti is on the land
belonging to the Central Government or any of its organizations,
the process of removal and resettlement shall be undertaken with
the prior consent of the Central Government or its organization
concerned:
Provided further that such resettlement shall not be done in
contravention of the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957
(61 of 1957) and those of the Master Plan for Delhi or the zonal
development plans prepared thereunder.”
15. While DUSIB acknowledges that it is the designated nodal
agency for the purposes of initiating the rehabilitation and relocation
process under the 2015 Policy, it is submitted that in the present case,
DDA, being the Land-Owning Agency10, is the implementing
authority for undertaking in-situ rehabilitation of the JJ dwellers
concerned under the PMAY-HFA(U) 11. Accordingly, it is the stand of
DUSIB that it has no role in the sealing drive purportedly undertaken
by the DDA, nor in the determination of eligibility for relocation or
rehabilitation of the petitioners who have been found ineligible by the
concerned authorities.
16. DUSIB further submits that it is an admitted position that the
petitioner, as on the cut-off date of 01.01.2015, was a minor. In this
regard, reliance is placed on Clause 1(ii) of Part B of the 2015 Policy,
which stipulates that, for eligibility under the rehabilitation scheme,
the applicant must have been residing in the jhuggi as on 01.01.2015.
Furthermore, as per Clause 1(iii), the name of the JJ dweller must
mandatorily appear in at least one of the voter lists for the years 2012,
2013, 2014 or 2015 (i.e., prior to 01.01.2015), as well as in the year of
10 LOA
11 Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana – Housing for All (Urban)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 11 of 46
17:09:51
the joint survey undertaken by the land-owning agency. In addition,
reference is drawn to Clause 1(vii), which mandates that the
beneficiary or any member of his/her family should not own a pucca
house in any part of India in his/her own name or in the name of any
family member, in consonance with the guidelines issued under the
PMAY(U).
STAND OF DDA
17. DDA, in its counter-affidavit dated 25.04.2023 filed through
Mr. Prakash Chand, Deputy Director, in W.P.(C) 2785/2023, has
taken preliminary objections, contending that the present writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed in limine. It is asserted that the petitioner,
during the course of proceedings before the Appellate Authority,
candidly admitted that neither he nor any of his family members was
in possession of a Ration Card bearing the address of the jhuggi in
respect of which allotment of alternate accommodation is being
sought. It is further stated that the petitioner has now attempted to rely
upon a document styled as a Ration Card, annexed as Annexure 1 to
the writ petition. However, the genuineness and authenticity of the
said document cannot be examined in these writ proceedings,
inasmuch as the same was never produced before the Eligibility
Determination Committee12 or the Appellate Authority, bodies
constituted specifically for the purpose of scrutinising and verifying
the documents submitted in support of claims for rehabilitation.
18. It is further averred that the petitioner has not furnished any
cogent explanation for having withheld the said document from the
12 EDC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 12 of 46
17:09:51
aforesaid authorities, despite having been afforded sufficient
opportunity. The respondent submits that the petitioner was found
ineligible for rehabilitation on the ground that he failed to submit
essential documents, including a valid Voter Identity Card, in
accordance with the stipulations laid down under the applicable
rehabilitation policy.
19. As per the prevailing 2015 Policy, an applicant is required to
produce at least one document from a specified set of documents, the
details whereof have been extracted in Paragraph 8 of this judgment. It
is mandated that such document(s) must have been issued prior to the
cut-off date of 01.01.2015. It is the specific case of the respondents
that the petitioner has failed to furnish any such qualifying document
and is, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the present proceedings.
LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
20. Mr. Dilraj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in W.P.(C) 2785/2023, submits that the present petition
pertains to the category of claimants who were minors as on the cut-
off date of 01.01.2015, as prescribed under the 2015 Policy. It is
contended that the EDC had initially rejected the petitioner’s claim on
the ground that the Voter Identity Card submitted by him could not be
verified.
21. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner was duly
reflected in the survey conducted by the DDA in the year 2019. In
support of his claim for alternate allotment, the petitioner submitted a
copy of his Voter Identity Card issued in 2017 and a copy of his
Aadhaar Card. Upon scrutiny of the petitioner’s documents, certain
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 13 of 46
17:09:51
deficiencies were observed, pursuant to which a call letter dated
21.11.2021 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to furnish
the requisite documentation. Additionally, a public notice dated
14.03.2022 was issued by the DDA, notifying eligible dwellers of a
verification camp scheduled from 21.03.2022 to 08.04.2022 at the
DDA Site Office, Kalkaji, near the JJ Cluster Bhoomiheen Camp,
thereby affording an additional opportunity for compliance.
22. As per the survey records, the jhuggi bearing No. A-331 was
found to be a single-storey pucca structure. However, the petitioner
failed to submit a valid Voter Identity Card or any other admissible
document conforming to the eligibility criteria stipulated under the
extant policy framework. Accordingly, the EDC rejected the
petitioner’s claim for allotment of an alternative dwelling unit. The
Nodal Officer, Bhoomiheen Camp, duly communicated the rejection
order vide Order No. 385/61121.G/1221 dated 07.11.2022. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Authority. Notably, as recorded in the appellate order dated
15.12.2022 (Annexure P-15, page 248), the sole ground for
rejection was that the petitioner was a minor as on the prescribed
cut-off date.
23. Learned counsel took this Court through the relevant portion of
the said order. It is further submitted that the petitioner was born on
15.07.1998 and had attained majority on 15.07.2016. Though his
name did not appear in the voter lists preceding 2015 due to being
underage, he was a major at the time of applying for the rehabilitation
process. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment in Udal &
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 14 of 46
17:09:51
Ors. v. DDA & Ors. 13 to submit that a holistic view must be taken
and that the rigid requirement of appearance in the voter list preceding
2015 has been relaxed in cases where other supporting documentation
establishes residence. The relevant portion relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is reproduced herein below: –
“39. We find that as per Clause 2 of PART – B of the R&R
Policy, 2015, it has been mandated that the Jhuggi Jhopri dwellers
must possess “any one” of the 12 documents. In the above cases,
the Jhuggi Jhopri dwellers have produced multiple records
ranging to periods in the late 1990s till date. In this view of the
matter, the persons detailed in paras 37 and 38 above are clearly
entitled to the benefit of the policy. We are of the view that the
ineligibility letter dated 22nd December, 2016 by the respondents
have been issued to these persons because of a disjoint reading of
Clause 1(iii) and Clause 2 of PART – B of the policy. The same
ought to be read together and a conclusion has to be drawn on a
holistic consideration of the documents which are required to be
filed detailed at Clause 1(iii) and Clause 2 of Part-B of the R&R
Policy, 2015.”
24. In this context, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on an Aadhaar Card issued in the year 2013, reflecting the
petitioner’s residence at the jhuggi in question, as well as an electricity
bill pertaining to the said jhuggi, issued in the name of the petitioner’s
mother, which also predates the cut-off date of 01.01.2015. It is
further submitted that none of the petitioner’s family members have
staked any independent claim for rehabilitation in respect of the said
jhuggi, and that the petitioner alone seeks to assert his individual
claim for allotment based on continuous residence and documentary
evidence.
25. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
13 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9715
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 15 of 46
17:09:51
that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable and fair opportunity
to present his case, and that the material placed on record was not duly
appreciated in light of the petitioner’s familial and factual context. It is
submitted that the cut-off date, i.e., 01.01.2015, as stipulated under the
2015 Policy, pertains solely to the criterion of residence/existence at
the relevant JJ basti. It is further argued that even as per the DDA’s
own interpretation, the said cut-off date is to be construed exclusively
for the purpose of establishing residence at the jhuggi, and not
necessarily for determining the age of the applicant as on that date.
26. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner’s residence at the JJ
basti prior to the cut-off date may be substantiated by (i) furnishing
any one of the twelve documents enumerated in Paragraph 8 of this
judgment, and (ii) the Aadhaar Card. It is further contended that
several of these documents are capable of being validly issued to, and
possessed by, a person who was a minor as on the relevant date. In
any event, it is submitted that the petitioner had attained the age of
majority as on the date of submission of his application under the
2015 Policy.
27. Mr. Shantanu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
2352/2023, submitted that the petitioner, at the age of approximately
14 years, migrated to Delhi in 2012 in search of livelihood and
initially resided with his sister and brother-in-law at Jhuggi No. B-
677, Bhoomiheen Camp, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. After
securing employment as a driver and attaining financial independence
at the age of 14, the petitioner shifted to Jhuggi No. B-656 within the
same camp, which was owned by a distant relative from his native
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 16 of 46
17:09:51
village. Initially residing as a tenant on the first floor, the petitioner
opened a savings account at the Central Bank of India on 29.09.2014,
with the address of B-677, which corresponded to the verification
address provided to his employer and was duly endorsed by the local
police. It is contended that the petitioner has remained in continuous
residence at the Bhoomiheen Camp since 2012.
28. It is further submitted that after initially residing at Jhuggi No.
B-677, the petitioner moved to Jhuggi No. B-656 within the same
Bhoomiheen Camp as a tenant under one Mr. Pradeep Karan. In due
course, the petitioner updated the address on his bank passbook to
reflect his residence at B-656, with assistance from his brother-in-law.
Though the petitioner orally requested the bank to provide the date of
application for the said address change, specifically to establish that it
occurred prior to the cut-off date of 01.01.2015, such records were not
made available.
29. The petitioner’s case, in essence, is that he had been residing in
the Bhoomiheen Camp prior to the cut-off date, and Jhuggi No. B-656
also existed prior to 01.01.2015. It is further submitted that there is no
rival claimant to the said jhuggi. Although he began residing there as a
tenant in 2014, the petitioner eventually purchased the said jhuggi
from Mr. Pradeep Karan in March 2018 for a consideration of Rs.
3,00,000/-, using his savings along with financial assistance from
family members. Post-purchase, he relocated his elderly parents to B-
656, where he now resides on the ground floor, while his parents
occupy the first floor.
30. It is emphasized that although the petitioner was a minor at the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 17 of 46
17:09:51
relevant time, he was independently residing and earning a livelihood
at the Bhoomiheen Camp. His relocation to Jhuggi No. B-656
occurred well before the cut-off date, and the subsequent change of
address in his bank passbook, albeit undated, corroborates his long-
standing residence at the said premises.
31. During the course of hearing learned counsels for the petitioners
also vehemently urged that the relevant provisions of the 2015 Policy,
specifically Part-B Clause 1(iv) and Part-A Clause 2(a)(iv), as well as
the Draft Protocol-2015 have been followed. It was submitted that the
2015 Policy and Protocol-2015 were framed pursuant to the directions
issued in Ajay Maken v. Union of India, dated 22.12.2015. It was
vehemently contended that under the DUSIB Act, the DUSIB was
designated as the Nodal Agency for implementation of the 2015
Policy read with the Protocol-2015. However, the respondent DDA
allegedly sidelined DUSIB and did not involve it in the joint survey
process. It was further pointed out that DUSIB, in its counter-
affidavit, has expressly stated that it played no role in the sealing
drive, in the determination of eligibility for rehabilitation, or in the
actual rehabilitation of eligible JJ dwellers, and was not associated
with the process of removal or resettlement undertaken by the DDA.
32. It was further submitted that, in terms of the applicable
guidelines, it was the statutory obligation of DUSIB to oversee and
ensure that in-situ rehabilitation of JJ dwellers is undertaken in
accordance with the letter and spirit of the 2015 Policy, prior to any
demolition activity by the land-owning agency, i.e., the DDA.
However, contrary to this mandate, the respondent DDA is stated to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 18 of 46
17:09:51
have unilaterally entrusted the task of conducting the survey of the
identified JJ clusters to a private entity, Society for Promotion of
Youth and Masses 14, without providing any formal training to its
personnel. It is alleged that the said outsourced agency carried out the
survey in complete disregard of the prescribed guidelines.
33. It was submitted that although the survey data was ostensibly
collected in October 2019, the record is conspicuously silent on the
exact duration of the survey exercise and the specific dates and
locations where public notices for conducting the survey were affixed.
Attention was drawn to Clause B(vi), Point 6 of the Protocol-2015,
which mandates that in the event of locked dwellings, a revisit by the
joint survey team must be undertaken after a week. It is alleged that in
several instances, the survey teams, comprising employees of SPYM,
visited jhuggis when adult occupants were away for work and children
were at school or tuition, resulting in erroneous conclusions regarding
non-occupancy.
34. Learned counsel appearing for other petitioners in the batch of
connected matters adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Dilraj
Singh and Mr. Shantanu, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 and W.P.(C) 2352/2023 respectively. It was urged
that the rights of JJ dwellers are recognized under Clauses 4.2.3 and
4.2.3.1 of the Master Plan for Delhi 2021, which emphasizes the
primacy of in-situ rehabilitation as the preferred mode of resettlement.
LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DDA
35. Ms. Kritika Gupta, learned counsel for the DDA has firstly
14 SPYM
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 19 of 46
17:09:51
emphasized that the present set of writ petitioners are not a
challenging the vires of the 2015 Policy. Rather, the core issue is
whether the said policy has been duly and correctly applied by the
DDA in each case. It is submitted that the cut-off date of 01.01.2015
holds paramount importance, as it is the date of reckoning for
assessing the eligibility of jhuggi dwellers for relocation &
rehabilitation. Clause 2(1) of the 2015 Policy clearly stipulates that
any jhuggi dweller found to have occupied land in Delhi after the cut-
off date of 01.01.2015 shall be removed without any notice, and no
obligation shall lie on any land-owning agency of the State, including
the DDA, to provide such person with rehabilitation. Accordingly, any
document that has been issued or that evidences residence or
occupation after the cut-off date is of no consequence under the
policy and cannot be relied upon to claim eligibility
36. It is contended that DDA laid out the foundational framework
underpinning the ongoing relocation and rehabilitation initiative. It
was submitted that the exercise pertains to the removal of
encroachments from Pockets A-1, A-2, and A-5 at Kalkaji Extension,
New Delhi, comprising three JJ Clusters, namely, Jawaharlal Camp,
Navjeevan Camp, and Bhoomiheen Camp. It was stated that
approximately 8,461 households were identified across these clusters.
Pursuant to the survey, 1,862 households were found eligible for
rehabilitation and have since been relocated to EWS housing units
constructed by DDA at A-14, Kalkaji Extension, upon payment of a
nominal beneficiary contribution of Rs. 1,42,000/-, which includes Rs.
30,000/- towards five-year maintenance charges. It was further
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 20 of 46
17:09:51
submitted that a five-tier process was adopted by the DDA to ensure
transparency and procedural fairness in the implementation of the
2015 Policy: –
• Issuance of Notice of Survey: In the first stage, public notice is
issued to inform residents of the impending survey.
• Conduct of Survey: The survey is then carried out to document
the existing jhuggi dwellers and their dwellings.
• Post-Survey Awareness Camp: After the survey, a public camp is
organized to inform residents about the documents required to
establish eligibility and how to submit them.
• Claims and Objections Committee: Jhuggi dwellers are afforded
an opportunity to file claims and objections, including corrections
to the survey data–such as rectifying name discrepancies or
instances where their dwelling may have been inadvertently
excluded from video documentation.
• Eligibility Determining Committee (EDC): Based on the
material submitted, the EDC assesses the eligibility of each
claimant.
37. It is submitted that any person aggrieved by the determination
of the EDC is provided with the remedy of filing an appeal before the
Appellate Authority constituted for this purpose. The existence of this
comprehensive redressal mechanism, comprising the five-tier process
of survey, awareness camp, claims and objections, scrutiny by the
EDC, and appellate review, ensures that every jhuggi dweller is
afforded an adequate and fair opportunity to establish their claim in
accordance with the rehabilitation policy. It is further submitted that
the petitioners, having availed of this mechanism, are bound by the
outcome rendered as per the parameters of the policy. In several cases,
it is stated, the entire process has been duly adhered to, yet upon
detailed examination, the Appellate Authority has found the claimants
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 21 of 46
17:09:51
ineligible for rehabilitation due to non-fulfilment of the requisite
eligibility criteria. As per the policy, a person seeking rehabilitation
must satisfy the following conditions:
• Must have attained the age of 18 years as on the cut-off date,
i.e., 01.01.2015;
• Must not be using the premises solely for commercial
purposes;
• No other family member of the applicant should own or
possess an alternative residence within the confines of the city.
• It is further submitted that, under the policy, the applicant must
possess a valid voter ID and have their name reflected in the
voter lists for the years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, as well as
in the year in which the survey was conducted. The rationale
behind this requirement is that the DDA is mandated to
examine the applicant’s continuous existence at the specific
jhuggi location, consistent with the principles laid down in
Sudama Singh v. GNCTD and Ajay Maken v. Union of India.
38. It is further submitted that the underlying objective of the
rehabilitation policy is to extend its benefits exclusively to those
jhuggi dwellers who demonstrate continuous and consistent residence
at the site in question. The policy does not envisage coverage for
individuals with transient, sporadic, or irregular occupancy. Ms.
Kritika Gupta, learned counsel for the DDA, submitted that the
demolition of the remaining JJ clusters and the effective
implementation of the rehabilitation scheme cannot proceed unless the
present petitioners–who have been declared ineligible–are duly
removed. It was contended that, in terms of the Explanation to Section
10(1) and the provisos to Section 10(3) of the DUSIB Act, 2010, the
Central Government, acting through DDA as the LOA, is empowered
to formulate and implement an independent scheme for eviction and
resettlement of jhuggi dwellers, without the mandatory involvement of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 22 of 46
17:09:51
DUSIB.
39. It is further submitted that the challenge raised in these
petitions, insofar as it pertains to rejection by the Appellate Authority
on the ground that the petitioner was a minor on the cut-off date, does
not amount to a vires challenge to the policy itself. No steps were
taken by the petitioners to assail the validity of the policy. It is
submitted that in cases falling under the ‘minor’ category, there is no
requirement to delve into the factual matrix or evaluate documentary
evidence, as the policy unequivocally disqualifies individuals who
were not majors on the prescribed cut-off date.
40. It is further stated that the petitioners falling within the ‘minor’
category have not made any specific factual averments in support of
their claim. It is submitted that their decision to now individually seek
consideration under the policy appears to be a conscious one, as the
Appellate Authority had observed that had the parents or guardians of
such minors participated in the survey process, they too would likely
have been found ineligible for rehabilitation, owing to their inability
to furnish the requisite documentation under the policy.
41. In relation to W.P.(C) 2785/2023, it is submitted by Ms. Kritika
Gupta, learned counsel for the DDA, that the petitioner had relied on
an electricity bill in the name of the mother, while neither parent
possessed a ration card, and the father did not have a voter ID card. It
is submitted that the Appellate Authority duly examined all
documents submitted by the petitioner and found that the family
lacked the requisite documentation under the policy. No explanation
has been offered in the rejoinder as to why the parents have not come
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 23 of 46
17:09:51
forward in the proceedings, and notably, the petition does not raise a
vires challenge to the policy itself.
42. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the ‘2015 Policy’ reveals
that, in order to qualify for rehabilitation, a JJ dweller must: (i) be a
citizen of India; (ii) be not less than 18 years of age as on the cut-off
date; (iii) be residing in a JJ basti that existed prior to 01.01.2006; (iv)
be in continuous residence in the jhuggi as on the cut-off date of
01.01.2015; (v) have their name reflected in at least one of the voter
lists of the years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015 (prior to 01.01.2015), as
well as in the year of the survey; and (vi) possess any one of the 12
prescribed documents issued before 01.01.2015.
43. Lastly it is submitted that the petitioner does not fulfil these
eligibility criteria. Admittedly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2785/2023,
was a minor as on 01.01.2015, and therefore his name did not appear
in the voter lists for the qualifying years. The petitioner’s Voter ID
Card (No. ARE2161313) was issued on 29.07.2017, well after the cut-
off date. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to produce any of the
12 documents required under the policy, issued prior to 01.01.2015. It
is submitted that the documents placed on record by the petitioner are
of no assistance in establishing a claim for rehabilitation, as they
neither meet the policy requirements nor confer any independent right,
title, or interest capable of compelling allotment by the DDA. Ms.
Gupta concluded her submissions by stating that 607 jhuggis are
protected under interim orders passed by this Court and placed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 24 of 46
17:09:51
reliance upon Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi 15; Ajay
Maken v. Union of India 16 and Ram Bharose v. Delhi Urban
Shelter Improvement Board17.
PART II
REJECTION OF PETITIONERS’ APPEALS BY THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE GROUND THAT THE
JHUGGI WAS SOLELY USED FOR COMMERICAL
PURPOSE
STAND OF DUSIB
44. In its counter affidavit dated 06.06.2023, filed through Mr.
Rajeev Kumar Datta, Deputy Director (Rehabilitation), the DUSIB,
while refraining from furnishing a para-wise response to the
averments made in W.P.(C) No. 6291/2023 and expressly reserving its
right to submit a more detailed reply at a later stage, has reiterated the
same position as previously adopted by it, namely, that the rejection of
the petitioners’ appeals was premised on the ground that they were
minors as on the cut-off date prescribed under the 2015 Policy, which
is reflect in Paragraph Nos. 14 to 16 of the present judgment.
STAND OF THE DDA
45. The counter affidavit dated 30.05.2023 filed in W.P.(C) No.
6219/2023 by Mr. Prakash Chand, Deputy Director, DDA, merits
outright rejection. The petitioner had preferred an appeal in
accordance with the 2015 Policy, which came to be dismissed on the
ground that no alternative allotment could be granted where the
concerned jhuggi was found to be in commercial use, a fact that stands
15 2010 SCC OnLine Del 612
16 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7618
17 2023 SCC OnLine Del 998
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 25 of 46
17:09:51
corroborated by the petitioner’s own admission before the Appellate
Authority. The petitioner cannot now be permitted to circumvent the
mandate of the said policy.
46. It is further contended that the present petition is liable to be
dismissed in limine, inasmuch as the JJ dwellers were afforded
multiple opportunities to furnish requisite documents and establish
their bona fides for seeking rehabilitation from the DDA. The survey
of the JJ cluster in question was conducted in October 2019,
subsequent to which notices inviting claims and objections were
affixed at conspicuous locations within the cluster, along with the
corresponding survey list. Furthermore, a facilitation camp was
organized at the DDA site office situated in proximity to the JJ cluster
on 31.08.2020. All affected persons were duly requested to submit
their claims within seven days from the date of publication of the
notices at the site office, particularly in cases where their names were
missing from the survey list or where discrepancies were noted. In
view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the substantial volume of
applications received, the deadline for submission of claims was
extended up to 30.09.2020. Accordingly, the survey list was made
available in the public domain as early as August 2020.
47. It is respectfully reiterated that the right to rehabilitation is not
an absolute or enforceable constitutional right available to
encroachers. Any entitlement to rehabilitation arises solely from and is
governed by the applicable policy framework, which is required to be
adhered to in letter and spirit. In the present case, the residents of
Bhoomiheen Camp were afforded multiple opportunities to submit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 26 of 46
17:09:51
their documents and claims; however, several among them failed to
avail of such opportunities. The process adopted for hearing the
appeals has been in accordance with due procedure, wherein the
statements of the appellants have been recorded in a fair and
transparent manner. During the appellate proceedings, the Appellate
Authority duly examined all relevant survey reports and video
recordings prepared during the survey, in the presence of the
respective appellants.
LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
QUA THE USAGE OF THE JHUGGI FOR COMMERICAL
PURPOSES
48. The petitioners, falling within the category whose appeals for
alternative allotment were rejected, have advanced a common line of
argument, namely, that the EDC erroneously rejected their claims on
the ground that the respective jhuggis were being used for commercial
purposes. Aggrieved by the said determination, the petitioners
preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. However, the
Appellate Authority, upon due consideration of the material on record,
upheld the decision of the EDC and affirmed that the jhuggis in
question were indeed found to be used for commercial activities.
Consequently, in terms of the 2015 Policy, the petitioners were rightly
held to be ineligible for alternative allotment.
49. The petitioners have contended that the alleged commercial
activity, as referred to by the DDA, pertains only to a limited portion
of the respective jhuggis. It has further been urged that, in any event,
the petitioners are entitled to the protection of their right to livelihood
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 27 of 46
17:09:51
as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
50. The petitioners have further submitted that the 2015 Policy
expressly provides that in cases where a jhuggi is being used for both
residential and commercial purposes, the occupant shall be entitled to
an alternative residential allotment. In support of this contention,
reliance has been placed upon Clause 1(ix) of Part B of the 2015
Policy, which reads as under: –
“In case, jhuggi is being used for both residential and commercial
purposes, the JJ dweller can be considered for allotment of one
unit. In case, the ground floor of the jhuggi is being used for
commercial purposes and other floors for residential purposes that
will entitle the JJ dwellers for one dwelling unit only.”
51. The petitioners have further submitted that the exercise of
conducting a survey must be carried out with utmost diligence and a
high degree of responsibility, bearing in mind the pressing and
vulnerable circumstances of jhuggi dwellers and their urgent need for
alternative accommodation. In this regard, reliance has been placed on
the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Sudama Singh v. Government
of NCT of Delhi 18, with the relevant portion being extracted
hereinbelow: –
“58. It is not uncommon to find a jhuggi dweller, with the
bulldozer at the doorstep, desperately trying to save whatever
precious little belongings and documents they have, which could
perhaps testify to the fact that the jhuggi dweller resided at that
place. These documents are literally a matter of life for a jhuggi
dweller, since most relocation schemes require proof of residence
before a ‘cut-off date’. If these documents are either forcefully
snatched away or destroyed (and very often they are) then the
jhuggi dweller is unable to establish entitlement to resettlement.
Therefore, the exercise of conducting a survey has to be very
carefully undertaken and with great deal of responsibility keeping18 2010 SCC Online Del 612
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 28 of 46
17:09:51
in view the desperate need of the jhuggi dweller for an alternative
accommodation.”
LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DDA
52. Ms. Kritika Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
DDA, submitted that the petitioners, falling within this category, have
failed to make any factual submissions in support of their claims. The
orders of the Appellate Authority rejecting their appeals remain
unrebutted. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority had
duly afforded the petitioners sufficient opportunity to demonstrate that
the concerned jhuggis were being used for both residential and
commercial purposes, which they failed to establish.
53. In respect of Petitioner No. 10 in W.P.(C) No. 8419/2023, it is
pointed out that no arguments have been advanced to displace or
controvert the factual findings recorded in the order passed by the
Appellate Authority. There is not even a minimal assertion that the
concerned jhuggi was being used for mixed (residential-cum-
commercial) purposes. In W.P.(C) No. 6291/2023, it is submitted that
the petitioner, along with his family, had shifted to another jhuggi in
2011, and from the jhuggi in question, he was operating a spice-
selling business. Video recordings were shown to the petitioner
wherein he is visibly seen conducting business from the premises. The
petitioner also admitted that he resides on rent in another jhuggi and
uses the subject jhuggi solely for commercial purposes. It is submitted
that none of the findings of the Appellate Authority in this regard have
been assailed.
54. It is further submitted that it was only upon the conclusion of a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 29 of 46
17:09:51
thorough factual and videographic survey of the area that it was
conclusively established that the specific jhuggi was being used
exclusively for commercial purposes and not for dual (residential-
cum-commercial) use, as envisaged under the 2015 Policy.
Accordingly, the petitioners were found ineligible for rehabilitation. It
is also noted that the genuineness or validity of the survey process has
not been challenged by the petitioners.
55. Learned counsel for the DDA has further submitted that the
petitioners seek to assert their eligibility for rehabilitation solely on
the basis of possession of certain documents such as Voter ID cards
and Ration Cards. However, as per the applicable 2015 Policy, read in
the context of the decision of this Court in Sudama Singh (supra),
mere possession of such documents does not confer an automatic right
to rehabilitation. The settled position is that the benefit of
rehabilitation accrues only to those who have demonstrated
“uninterrupted continuous use of the jhuggi for residential purposes
only.”
ANALYSIS & DECISION:
56. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties. I have also
perused the relevant record of the case.
57. First things first, it is pertinent to observe that the preliminary
objections raised by learned counsels for the petitioners in the present
writ petition as well as in the connected matters to the effect that under
the DUSIB Act, the DUSIB was designated as the Nodal Agency for
implementation of the 2015 Policy read with the Protocol-2015 but the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 30 of 46
17:09:51
the respondent DDA allegedly sidelined DUSIB and did not involve it
in the joint survey process, and therefore, the entire process of
determination of eligibility conditions is flawed and unconstitutional,
has already been addressed by this Court in W.P.(C) 6290/2023, titled
Sanjeev Bhadra & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, along with a
batch of other writ petitions, vide order dated 26.05.2025, and the
preliminary objections have been found to be unsustainable in law.
The said order is not repeated for the sake of brevity and may be read
as forming an integral part of the present judgment.
W.P.(C) 2785/2023; W.P.(C) 2352/2023 & W.P.(C) 9038/2023
58. Upon crossing the preliminary threshold concerning the
applicability of the 2015 Policy, and the requirement of strict
adherence to the prescribed procedure by the DDA for the
determination of claims in the present writ petitions, it becomes
evident that each of the petitioners was a minor as on the cut-off date,
i.e., 01.01.2015. It is not in dispute that the 2015 Policy applies only
to those jhuggi-jhopri clusters which came into existence prior to
01.01.2006. Indeed, the statutory protection afforded under the
National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second
Act, 2011, mandates that no person residing in such JJ clusters,
established before 01.01.2006, shall be evicted without provision of
alternative housing. However, the necessary corollary flowing from
the above discussion is that JJ bastis or clusters which came up after
01.01.2006 but before 01.01.2015 do not fall within the protective
umbrella of the DUSIB Act, and the dwellers of such post-2006 JJ
clusters are not entitled to any relocation or rehabilitation under the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 31 of 46
17:09:51
2015 Policy. Consequently, JJ bastis/clusters established after
01.01.2015 are, a fortiori, excluded from consideration for the
purposes of relocation or rehabilitation.
59. It is also pertinent to note that the constitutional validity of the
2015 Policy has not been challenged by the petitioners. As per Part B,
Clause (1) of the said Policy, the foremost eligibility criterion for
allotment of an alternative dwelling unit under the rehabilitation and
relocation scheme is that the JJ dweller must be a citizen of India and
not less than 18 years of age as on the cut-off date, i.e., 01.01.2015.
60. At this juncture, it is considered apposite to extract the
particulars of the petitioners, specifically their respective dates of birth
and the reasons recorded for denial of their claims for rehabilitation,
as set out below: –
S. No. W.P.(C) Date of Birth Reason for rejection
1. W.P.(C) 15.07.1998 Order dated 15.12.2022, passed by
2785/2023 the Appellate Authority [Annexure
P-14]“19. The Appellant/Claimant has
tendered his Voter ID Card
bearing number ARE 2161313
(Annexure-A), Aadhar Card
(Annexure-B) and Pan Card
(Annexure-C). The
Appellant/Claimant has
categorically admitted that his date
of birth is 15.07.1998. He has also
further specifically stated that in
the Voter ID Card (Annexure-A),
Aadhar Card (Annexure-B) as well
as in the Pan Card (Annexure-C)
his date of birth is correctly
recorded to be 15.07.1998.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 32 of 46
17:09:51
20. The admission of the
Appellant/Claimant is a clincher
piece of evidence and it shows that
he was minor on the cut off date of
01.01.2015. This shows that the
Appellant/Claimant does not fulfill
the eligibility criteria as per the
guidelines issued by DDA because
he was less than 18 years of age on
the cut off date of 01.01.2015.
21. The Appellant/Claimant has
tendered his Voter ID Card
bearing number ARE 2161313
(Annexure-A), which has been
issued on 29.07.2017, much after
the cut off date of· 01.01.2015. As
already pointed out, the material
placed on file has proved that the
Appellant/ Claimant was minor on
the cut off date of 01.01.2015 and
accordingly Voter ID Card could
not have been issued in his favour
on the cut off date of 01.01.2015.
Accordingly, the question of his
name appearing in at least on the
voter list of the year’s 2012, 2013,
2014 and 2015 (prior to 01-01-
2015) goes not arise at all.
Therefore, we have no hesitation in
holding that the
Appellant/Claimant was a minor
on the cut off date of 01.01.2015
and further he was not having a
Voter ID Card on the cut off date
of 01.01.2015 and accordingly he
does not fulfill the eligibility
criteria as per the guidelines issued
by DDA.
22. The Appellant/ Claimant has
also tendered the Electricity Bill
(Annexure-D) thereby showing that
the electricity connection has been
taken in the name of his mother,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 33 of 46
17:09:51
Namita Das. He has also tendered
his bank Pass Book (Annexure-E)
and his Voter List of the year 2019
(Annexure-F) in which his name
appears at SI. No. 641. As
mentioned above the
Appellant/Claimant was a minor
and further he was not having a
Voter ID Card on the cut off date
of 01.01.2015 and his name does
not appear in any of the voter list
of the year’s 2012, 2013, 2014 and
2015 (prior to 01-01-2015) and
accordingly merely tendering the
Voter list of the year 2019
(Annexure-F), the Bank Pass Book
(Annexure-E) and the Electricity
Bill (Annexure-D) are of no help
to the Appellant/Claimant because
these documents do not create any
right, title or interest in his favour
to claim allotment from DDA.
23. Accordingly, we have no
hesitation in holding that the
Appellant/Claimant was not having
all the requisite documents,
including Voter ID card, on the
cutoff date of 01.01.2015.
24. The material placed on file
shows that the Appellant/Claimant
has not been living separately &
independently in the Jhuggi No. A-
331 but he has been living there as
member of the joint family with his
parents. Furthermore, the
Appellant/Claimant was minor and
accordingly Voter ID Card could
not be issued in his favour as he
was minor on the cut off date of
01.01.2015. The Voter ID Card No.
ARE2161313 (Annexure-A) of the
present Appellant/Claimant has
been issued on 29.07.2017, much
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 34 of 46
17:09:51
after the cut off date of 01.01.2015.
The documents, Annexure-A to
Annexure-F, are of no help to the
Appellant/Claimant because these
documents do not create any right,
title or interest in his favour to
claim allotment from DDA because
as per our discussion above the
Appellant/Claimant was less than
18 years of age on the cut off date
of 01.01.2015 and further the Voter
ID No. ARE 2161313 (Annexure-A)
has been issued on 29.07.2017,
much after the cut off date of
01.01.2015 and his name also does
not appear in any of the voter list
of the year’s 2012, 2013, 2014 and
2015 (prior to 01-01-2015).
Therefore, we have no hesitation in
holding that the Appellant/
Claimant does not fulfill the
eligibility criteria as per the
guidelines issued by DDA.”
2. W.P.(C) 12.05.1997 Order dated 16.01.2023, passed
2352/2023 by the Appellate Authority
[Annexure-F]
“17. The Appellant/Claimant has
tendered the Aadhar Card
(Annexure-E) of his mother
Shakuntla, Gas Bill (Annexure-F),
Electricity Bill (Annexure-G) and
Ration Card (Annexure H). The
Aadhar Card (Annexure E) of his
mother Shakuntla is not material to
determine the
eligibility of Appellant/Claimant.
The Gas Bill (Annexure-F) shows
that the connection was
taken in the name of father of the
present Appellant/Claimant,
Mangal, on 05.10.2018, much after
the cut off date 01.01.2015. The
Ration Card (Annexure-H) shows
that it has been issued in the name
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 35 of 46
17:09:51
of Pradeep Karan on the address
of B-656 and only the name of one
Laxman has been mentioned. The
date of issue of the Ration Card is
nowhere mentioned and further the
name of the Appellant/Claimant is
also not recorded. It is also not
explained as to how Pradeep
Karan had got the Ration Card
(Annexure-H) issued on the
address of Jhuggi No. B-656
regarding which the
Appellant/Claimant has been
claiming allotment from DDA. The
Appellant/ Claimant has
categorically admitted that he is
not having a separate Ration Card.
The documents, Annexure-E to
Annexure-H are of no help to the
Appellant/Claimant because these
documents do not create any right,
title or interest in his favour to:
claim allotment from DDA as the
Appellant/ Claimant was minor: on
the cut off date of 01:01.2015 and
he does not have Voter 10 Card on
the cut off date of 01.01.2015 and
his name does not appear in at
least on the voter list of the year’s
2012,2013, 2014and 2015 (prior to
01-01-2015) &also in the year of
survey.
18. Accordingly, we have no
hesitation in holding that the
Appellant/Claimant was not having
all requisite documents, including
Voter ID card, on the cutoff date 0f
01.01.2015 and his name does not
appear in any of the voter list of
year’s 2012, 2014, 2014 and 2015
(prior to 01-01-2015) & also in the
year of survey
19. The material placed on file
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 36 of 46
17:09:51
shows that the Appellant/ Claimant
was less than 18 years of age and
accordingly Voter ID Card could
not be issued in his favour as he
was minor on the cut off date of
01.01.2015. The Voter ID Card No.
ARE 2281012 (Annexure-A), has
been issued on 25.07.2019, much
after. the cut off date of
01.01.2015. The documents,
Annexure-A to Annexure-H, are of
no help to the Appellant/Claimant
because these documents do not
create any right, title or interest in
his favour to claim allotment from
DDA because as per our discussion
above the Appellant/ Claimant was
less than 18 years of age on the cut
off date of 01(01.2015 and further
the Voter ID Card No. ARE
2281012 (Annexure-A), has been
issued on 25.07.2019, much after
the cut off date of 01.01.2015 and
his name also does not appear in
any of the voter list of the year’s
2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 (prior
to 01-01-2015) & also in the year
of survey. Therefore, we have no
hesitation in holding that the
Appellant/ Claimant does not fulfill
the eligibility criteria as per the
guidelines issued by DDA.”
3. W.P.(C) 29.09.1999 Order dated 01.02.2023, passed
9038/2023 by the Appellate Authority
[Annexure P-1]
“16. The Appellant/Claimant has
tendered his Voter ID Card
bearing number ARE 2560449
(Annexure-A), Aadhar Card
(Annexure-B) and Pan Card
(Annexure-C). The
Appellant/Claimant has
categorically admitted that his date
of birth is 29.09.1999. He has also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 37 of 46
17:09:51
further specifically stated that in
the Voter ID Card (Annexure-A),
Aadhar Card (Annexure-B) and
Pan Card (Annexure-C) his date of
birth is correctly recorded to be
29.09.1999. The admission of the
Appellant/Claimant is a clincher
piece of evidence and it shows that
he was minor on the cut off date of
01.01.2015. This shows that the
Appellant/Claimant does not fulfil
the eligibility criteria as per the
guidelines issued by DDA because
he was less than 18 years of age on
the cut off date of 01.01.2015.
17. The Appellant/Claimant has
tendered his Voter ID Card No.
ARE 2560449 (Annexure-A), which
has been issued on 14.12.2021,
much after the cut off date of
01.01.2015 and accordingly his
name appearing in at least on the
voter list of the year’s 2012, 2013,
2014 and 2015 (prior to 01-01-
2015) & also in the year of survey,
does not arise at all. We have no
hesitation in holding that the
Appellant/ Claimant was not
having all the requisite documents,
including Voter ID card, on the
cutoff date of 01.01.2015 and his
name does not appear in any of the
voter list of year’s 2012, 2013,
2014 and 2015 (prior to
01.01.2015) & also in the year of
survey. Therefore, the Appellant/
Claimant does not fulfill the
eligibility criteria as per the
guidelines issued by DDA.”
61. A careful perusal of the aforesaid reasons by the Appellate
Authority undisputable holding that the petitioners had not attained
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 38 of 46
17:09:51
the age of 18 years as on the cut-off date, they are per se ineligible for
any benefit under the 2015 Policy. The contention advanced by the
learned Standing Counsel for the DDA that no obligation is cast upon
the respondent-authority to consider ineligible claims is well-founded.
62. Accordingly, these writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are
liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.
W.P.(C) 6291/2023 and 11015/20236
63. Firstly, it is pertinent to refer to the eligibility criteria prescribed
for the allotment of alternative dwelling units under the scheme for
rehabilitation and relocation of JJ dwellers, as set out in Part-B of the
2015 Policy. The relevant portion of the policy reads as under: –
“….
(8) No dwelling unit shall be allotted if the jhuggi is used
solely for commercial purpose.
(9) In case, the jhuggie being used for both residential and
commercial purposes can be considered allotment of one
residential plot only. In case, the ground floor of the jhuggie is
being used for commercial purposes and other floors for residential
purposes that will entitle him for one residential plot only, if such
commercial and residential unit is occupied by the same person.
….”
64. The present two writ petitions pertain to cases wherein the
claims of the petitioners were rejected by the EDC, and the said
rejection was upheld by the Appellate Authority upon the petitioners’
preferring appeals. As explicitly envisaged under Part-B of the 2015
Policy, the decision of the Appellate Authority, once approved by the
competent authority, attains finality and is binding. In the present
cases, findings of fact have been duly recorded by the EDC, and the
same have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority after providing
due opportunity to the petitioners, including confronting them with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 39 of 46
17:09:51
videographic evidence of the site in question.
65. The petitioners were found to have been utilising the subject
jhuggi-jhopri structures exclusively for commercial purposes. In such
a scenario, the production of documents merely indicating possession
would be of no consequence in establishing entitlement to
rehabilitation under the 2015 Policy. The bottom line is that findings
of fact, duly arrived at by the designated authorities in accordance
with the policy framework, cannot be reappreciated or interfered with
in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The reasoning accorded by the Appellate Authority while
dismissing the appeals of the petitioners are reproduced herein below:-
S. No. W.P.(C) Reason for rejection
1. W.P.(C) Order dated 31.03.2023, passed by the Appellate
6291/2023 Authority. [Annexure P-1]
“11. In brief, the present Appellant/Claimant had
made a Representation to the Competent Authority
thereby alleging that he is living in Jhuggi bearing
No. B-300 Bhoomiheen Camp, Govind Puri
Extension, Kalkaji. A Public Notice by DDA was
pasted in the Bhoomiheen Camp to inform the
Jhuggi dwellers about the survey to be conducted in
the said basti for determination/relocation of JJ
Dwellers of Bhoomiheen Camp. The
Appellant/Claimant submitted representation to the
competent authority along with requisite
documents, thereby, alleging that he fulfills the
eligibility criteria. While examining the
representation for determination of eligibility it was
observed that there was some deficiency in the
requisite documents as per the policy guidelines. In
this regard, Deficiency/ Call Letter was issued early
in the year 2022 to the Appellant/ Claimant thereby
requesting for submission of required documents.
Further, a Public Notice was also issued on
14.03.2022 thereby intimating the dwellers about
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 40 of 46
17:09:51
organizing of a camp by DDA from 21.03.2022 to
08.04.2022 at DDA/site office at Kalkaji near to JJ
Cluster Bhoomiheen Camp wherein the Appellant/
Claimant was given an opportunity for submission
of required documents. As per survey record, the
Jhuggi bearing No. B-300 was. found to be used for
commercial purposes. Accordingly the Appellant/
Claimant was not entitled for alternate allotment as
per the policy guidelines. Hence, the Eligibility
Determination Committee has rejected the claim of
the present Appellant/ Claimant for alternative
allotment and the Nodal Officer, Bhoomiheen
Camp, duly communicated its order bearing No.
385/61/102.G/1316 dated 07.11.2022 to the present
Appellant/ Claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Appeal No. 25G of 2023 has been filed by
the present Appellant/ Claimant.
12. In response to the notice, the Appellant/
Claimant has appeared in person. Whereas DDA is
being represented by Sh. Prakash Chand, Dy.
Director, and Sh. Lokesh Meena, Assistant
Director.
13. The statement of the Appellant/Claimant has
been recorded before us on 01.03.2023. The
Appellant/Claimant has also tendered documents,
Annexure-A to Annexure-Q. in support of his claim.
DDA has furnished the survey records and. also the
Video Clippings prepared along with the survey.
XXXX
15. It is the admitted fact that as per survey record,
the Appellant/ Claimant’s Jhuggi bearing No. B-300
was found to be used for commercial purposes and
accordingly he was not found entitled for alternate
allotment as per the policy guidelines. Accordingly,
the Eligibility Determination Committee has
rejected the claim of the Appellant/ Claimant, which
was communicated to him by the Nodal Officer vide
Rejection Order dated 07.11.2022 whereby the
reasons for rejection is mentioned to be
“Commercial” and aggrieved by the same the
Appellant/ Claimant has come before us by way of
filing the present Appeal.
Thus in the present Appeal we are concerned with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 41 of 46
17:09:51
dispute with regard to the eligibility of the present
Appellant/Claimant. We shall appraise the material
placed on file to determine as to whether the
Appellant/ Claimant’s Jhuggi bearing No. B-300
was found to be exclusively used for commercial
purposes and accordingly the present
Appellant/Claimant is not entitled for alternate
allotment as per the policy guidelines.
XXXX
25. DDA has furnished the survey records along
with four video clips. The video clips were played
before the Appellant/Claimant when his statement
was recorded before us on 01.03.2023 wherein he
has stated that in the video clips he (Kashmir Lal-
Appellant/Claimant) is seen standing in his shop of
spices and he is also heard of making a statement
that he lives on rent but he runs a shop from there
and further he is also seen holding a slate on which
“Kashmir Lal- B-300 G (Shop)” is written.
26. The admission of the Appellant/Claimant is a
clincher piece of evidence. The survey records as
well as the four video clips furnished by DDA
shows that the Jhuggi No. B-300 is exclusively used
by the Appellant/Claimant for commercial purposes
for running a shop for selling spices. Further, in the
video he is clearly seen to be standing in his shop
and holding a slate on which “Kashmir Lal- B-300
G (Shop)” is written.
27. Further, the Appellant/Claimant has specifically
admitted that he is running a shop from Jhuggi No.
B-300 and has been living on rent somewhere else.
It is already pointed out that the Appellant/
Claimant has specifically stated that since 2010-11
he is not living in Jhuggi No. B-300 but living on
rent. Therefore, the statement of the present
Appellant/ Claimant has been duly corroborated by
the survey records as well as the four video clips
furnished by DDA thereby showing that the Jhuggi
No. B-300 is solely used by the Appellant/Claimant
for commercial purposes for running· a shop for
selling spices.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 42 of 46
17:09:51
28. It is pointed out that the Appellant/ Claimant
has furnished a pen drive containing video and the
same was played before the Appellant/ Claimant
when his statement was recorded before us on
01.03.2023 wherein he has stated that in the video
clip he is seen climbing to the “Night Shelter” on
the first floor by using a bamboo ladder and the
“Night Shelter” having walls made with “Chatai”
and covered with “Tin sheets” is seen.
29. The Appellant/ Claimant has admitted that he
had not got the said “Night Shelter” surveyed when
the survey team of DDA had come to survey his
Jhuggi. Furthermore, the existence of a Kuccha
“Night Shelter” on the first floor of Jhuggi No. B-
300 is of no help to the Appellant/ Claimant
because he has specifically admitted that since
2010-11, he along with his family is not living in
Jhuggi no. B-300 regarding which he has claimed
allotment from DDA but he has been living on rent
somewhere else. Thus Jhuggi No. B-300 is not used
for both residential and commercial purposes but it
is solely used for commercial purposes.
XXXX
31. It is also pointed out that the admission of the
Appellant/ Claimant is a clincher piece of evidence
and it shows that the Appellant/ Claimant, Kashmir
Lal, along with his wife Rekha and two children,
namely, Tanuj & Yogya, was not living in Jhuggi
No. B-300, Bhoomiheen Camp on the cutoff date of
01.01.2.015 but since 2010-11 they have been living
on rent as they have initially lived in Jhuggi No. C-
537, Bhoomiheen Camp from 2010-11 till they have
shifted to Jhuggi No. D-86, Bhoomiheen Camp in
the year 2019. The present Appellant/ Claimant, is
running a “Spice Shop” from the said shop bearing
Jhuggi No. B-300-. The Appellant/ Claimant has
been using the Jhuggi No. B-300 exclusively for
commercial purposes as shop for running a “Spice
Shop” ‘and since 2010-11 it has never been used for
residential purposes.
32. As per our discussion above, the statement of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 43 of 46
17:09:51
the Appellant/Claimant as well as the survey
records/video clips has duly proved that the Jhuggi
No. B-300 has been used by Kashmir for running a
shop for selling spices and on the cutoff date of
01.01.2015 it was not put to mixed use as
commercial/residential or exclusively for
residential purposes. Therefore, the
Appellant/Claimant does not fulfill the eligibility
criteria as per the guidelines issued by DDA.
2. W.P.(C) Order dated 15.02.2023, passed by the Appellate
11015/2023 Authority. [Annexure P-4]
“9. The Appellant/Claimant has stated that she is
having a double storey Jhuggi No. D-152 and it
comprised of one room on each floor. Her husband
Jagdish Prasad is running an Electricity shop
under the name & style “Roshni Electricals” on the
ground floor and he also used to take rest in the
shop during the daytime whereas the room on the
first floor is used for living purposes by the family
including cooking food.
XXXX
13. DDA has furnished the survey records along
with thirteen video clips, which pertains to the
Jhuggi of the Appellant/Claimant. The video clips
were played before the Appellant/Claimant when
her statement was recorded before us on
02.02.2023 wherein she has started that in the eight
video clips the electrical shop on the ground floor is
seen and she is seen standing in her shop regarding
which she has sought allotment from DDA and
further a bamboo ladder is seen going from the
ground floor to the upper floor. The
Appellant/Claimant is also seen climbing up to the
first floor where her daughter-in-law is also seen
along. It is pointed out that the Appellant/Claimant
is also heard if making statement that her husband
is running a shop on the ground floor and the entire
family uses the first floor for living purposes. This
shows that the Appellant/Claimant and also the
family of her son Indrajit are living jointly.
14. The admission of the Appellant/ Claimant is a
clincher piece of evidence and it shows that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 44 of 46
17:09:51
Appellant/ Claimant is having a double storey
Jhuggi No. D-152 and it comprised of one room on
each floor. The room on the ground floor is used as
shop wherein her husband Jagdish Prasad is
running an electricity shop under the name & style
“Roshni Electricals” and further the Appellant/
Claimant & her family are living jointly on the first
floor. It is also admitted that DDA has made
allotment in favour of her daughter-in-law Sangeeta
W/o Indrajit against the first floor of the said
Jhuggi No. D-152. Therefore, the material placed
on file shows that Jhuggi No. D-152 is double
storey structure and it comprised of one room on
each floor. The ground floor of Jhuggi No. D-152 is
used as shop whereas the Appellant/ Claimant and
her family are jointly living on first floor of Jhuggi
No. D-152.
Therefore, for all purposes the double storey jhuggi
is a single dwelling unit as the Jhuggi No. D-152 is
being used for both residential and commercial
purposes. DDA has made allotment in favour of
Sangeeta W/o Indrajit against the first floor of the
said Jhuggi No. D-152 and accordingly two
allotments against the same dwelling unit are not
permissible as per the guidelines issued by DDA.
15. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding
that the Appellant/ Claimant and her family have
been using the ground floor of Jhuggi No. D-152 as
shop for commercial purposes and the first floor of
the said Jhuggi is used for residential purposes
regarding which DDA has made allotment in favour
of Sangeeta (daughter-in-law of the present
Appelant/Claimant) and accordingly the Appellant
/Claimant is not entitled to seek second allotment
against then same dwelling unit. Therefore, the
Appellant /Claimant does not fulfill the eiigibility
criteria as per the guidelines issued by DDA.
66. Without further ado, the aforesaid findings on facts in each case
cannot be challenged in the instant writ petitions.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 45 of 46
17:09:51
67. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are devoid of merit and
are, therefore, dismissed.
68. The pending applications also stand disposed of.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
MAY 30, 2025
Sadiq/SS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
W.P.(C) 2785/2023 & Connected matters
Signing Date:30.05.2025 Page 46 of 46
17:09:51
[ad_2]
Source link