Delhi High Court
Dhobhi Ghat Jhuggi Adhikar Manch vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors on 3 March, 2025
Author: Dharmesh Sharma
Bench: Dharmesh Sharma
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 20 December 2024
Judgment pronounced on : 03 March 2025
+ W.P. (C) 5822/2021 and CM APPL. 18254/2021, CM APPL.
30553/2021
DHOBI GHAT JHUGGI ADHIKAR MANCH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Haider Ali, Adv.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, SC with
Ms. Kritika Gupta & Mr.
Kuljeet Singh, Advos. For
DDA.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms.
Harshits Maheshwari & Mr.
Pawan Karan Deo, Advs. For
DUSIB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
JUDGEMENT
1. The petitioner, i.e., Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi Adhikar Manch
(hereinafter referred as ‘petitioner union’] is invoking the extra-
ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by instituting the present writ
petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, by
seeking the following reliefs against the respondents herein: –
“a. Direct the respondent no. 1, DDA to suspend further the
demolition (if any) and maintain status quo at the JJ Slum, Dhobi
Ghat, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, South Delhi, Delhi-
110025 until all residents are surveyed and rehabilitated as per the
DUSIB Policy;
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 1 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
b. Direct respondent no.2, DUSIB to conduct a survey of the
affected residents and rehabilitate them in accordance with the
Delhi JJ slum Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015;
c. Direct the respondents to put on record the survey of the
residents in accordance with the DUSIB policy of 2015;
d. Direct respondents to immediately provide temporary shelter to
the Petitioner with proper sanitation, clean water and hygienic
conditions;
e. Direct the respondents to pay 1,00,000/- compensation to the
each of the affected family for the loss and suffering due to
demolition and inaction on the part of the respondents;
f. Any other order deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of
the present case.”
BRIEF FACTS
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner union comprises
residents of the Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi clusters. It is claimed by the
petitioner union that the Jhuggi Jhopri 1 Basti at Dhobi Ghat, Batla
House Jamia Nagar, Okhla, South Delhi, Delhi – 110025 2 has been in
existence since 1990s and consists of 800 households. The residents,
who are primarily daily wage labourers and domestic workers, claim
to have documentary proof of residence predating 01.01.2015, as
mandated under the DUSIB3 Policy, 2015 4
3. The grievance of the petitioner union is that on 23.09.2020, two
police officials visited the Basti and directed the residents to vacate
their respective dwellings on the ground that demolition was
scheduled for the following day. The petitioner union alleges that no
prior notice of eviction was served upon the residents. On 24.09.2020,
at approximately 10:00 AM, two officials of the DDA, accompanied
1 JJ
2 Subject site
3 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 2 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
by 30-40 police personnel, two JCB bulldozers, and 3-4 MCD5 trucks,
arrived at the site and commenced the demolition of the dwellings. It
is averred that during the process, household belongings, including
furniture, utensils, jewellery, money, and documents, were loaded into
MCD trucks without affording the residents an opportunity to retrieve
them. The petitioner union further alleges that individuals who
protested against the demolition were subjected to physical assault and
unlawful detention at the police station. No formal notice of eviction
was issued prior to the said demolition.
4. The petitioner union contends that the Basti is listed at Serial
No. 10 in the Additional JJ Clusters List published by DUSIB for
rehabilitation, and thus, the respondents are obligated to adhere to the
DUSIB Relocation Policy, 2015. As per the policy, any resident with
proof of residence prior to 01.01.2015 is eligible for rehabilitation. It
is further stated that in 2017, a fire of unknown origin destroyed
several documents of the residents, which might have otherwise
substantiated their claims of long-standing residence.
5. It is stated that a family residing in the Basti, along with certain
other residents, had filed W.P. (C) 7032/2020 before this Court,
seeking a stay on the eviction of residents at Dhobi Ghat, Batla House,
Jamia Nagar, Okhla, South Delhi, and a direction to DUSIB to
conduct a survey of the affected residents and rehabilitate them in
accordance with the 2015 Policy. The petitioners therein also sought a
direction to Police to provide protection against any demolition in the
4 No. D-232/DD(Reh.)HQ/2016 dated 14.06.2016 [Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and
Relocation Policy]
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 3 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
absence of an express court order and to return the belongings seized
during the demolition drive conducted on 24.09.2020.
6. It is stated that vide order dated 25.09.2020 in W.P.(C)
7031/2020, this Court directed the DDA to conduct an enumeration of
the persons whose dwellings had been demolished and to identify an
alternate site for their rehabilitation within ten days. It was further
directed that in the event DDA was unable to provide an alternate site,
it would permit the affected residents to set up temporary camps at the
subject site. Additionally, a stay of five days was granted to the
petitioners to enable them to take appropriate steps as per law.
Subsequently, the petitioners in W.P.(C) 7032/2020 approached the
Division Bench of this Court in LPA 6 276/2020, seeking a stay on the
demolition. However, the Division Bench declined to grant such
relief, noting the submission of the DDA that the learned National
Green Tribunal, in OA No. 6 of 2012 titled Manoj Misra v. Union of
India, had directed the removal of encroachments near the Yamuna
floodplains and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- per month for
non-compliance. Further, the petitioners therein were given ten days’
time to approach the learned National Green Tribunal.
7. In LPA 276/2020, this Court directed the petitioners therein to
seek clarification or appropriate relief from the learned National Green
Tribunal concerning its order dated 13.01.2015 in Manoj Misra v.
Union of India, bearing O.A. No. 06/2012. The relevant portion of
the said order is reproduced below:
5 Municipal Corporation of Delhi
6 Letters Patent AppealSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 4 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
“50. It cannot be disputed and in fact, has not been disputed that
the present status of Yamuna is only of a sewer, due to lack of fresh
water flow, discharge of untreated or partly treated domestic and
industrial waste and due to dumping of debris on its banks and in
it. Its flood plains are highly truncated and degraded, resulting in
depletion in most of its natural bio-diversity. It has been submitted
before the Tribunal that around 37000 cu. m. on the Eastern bank
and around 53000 cu. m. on the Western bank is the quantum of
debris which was lying on the banks River Yamuna. Of course,
majority of this has already been removed under the directions of
the Tribunal and steps have been taken to identify such sites. Still
little part of debris, consisting of construction and other debris
remains. Steps need to be taken not only to remove the remaining
part of debris and clear the river banks absolutely, but also to
prevent and ensure that there is no fresh dumping of debris in the
entire stretch passing through the National Capital Region (for
short, ‘NCR’). Huge dumps and encroachments of the river banks
were noticed by the Expert Committee constituted by the MOEF,
during their visits to these sites. Private persons, authorities, and
even bodies like DMRC had contributed to encroachments and
dumping, which was rampant. Thus, the committee recommended
that:
1. All solid waste dumps, including those used for roads and
bunds, within the active floodplain should be removed forthwith.
2. All solid waste recycling units, farm houses, cattle farms
and nurseries must be relocated at the earliest.
3. Construction of new bunds, roads and guide bunds,
widening of existing bunds, spurs and guide bunds within the
active floodplains should be stopped and banned.
4. No filling of the floodplain/riverbeds be allowed in the
name of development and renovation of ghats. The floodplain
under built up areas at Sur Ghat and Quedsia Ghat should be
recovered. All recreational facilities for people visiting ghats
should be created close to the embankments/roads where a channel
taken out from the water course of the river can be brought for the
purpose.
5. All settlements encroaching upon the floodplain (with the
exceptions noted in the detailed report) should be relocated at the
earliest.
6. Construction of new barrages and roads, railway and
metro bridges, and embankments and bunds should not be
permitted. In exceptional cases, a critical assessment of their
potential impacts on flood aggravation and environmental
clearances should be made mandatory.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 5 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
7. There is a shortage of landfill sites in Delhi Immediate
action is required to identify additional landfill sites catering to the
next 25 years of requirement. Action is also required to identify
more sites for recycling of building material waste.
xxxx
57. As already noticed above, vide order dated 13th September,
2013 passed by the Tribunal, the Expert Committee was required
to examine and critically analyse the Yamuna River Front
Development Plan of the DDA as well. This was done by the
Committee. This Plan of DDA is an Integrated project of
recreational areas along with, bio-diversity parks, in four of the
subzones of the ‘O Zone’. The area proposed for the
implementation of Yamuna River Front Development {YRFD}
scheme by the DDA, is the active Flood Plain which is frequently
flooded by medium floods. According to the Expert Committee, the
proposed activities such as construction of various recreational
and public facilities, by effecting topographic changes, will reduce
the flood carrying capacity and aggravate flooding, besides
contributing to pollution. Development of the flood plains has to be
strictly done, while keeping the biodiversity intact and ensuring
that no major and impermissible construction activity is permitted
on the flood plain. Biodiversity parks could be made at suitable
locations, for example, sub-zone IV and sub-zone. VI, as
recommended by the Expert Committee in its report. The
Committee has specifically noticed that the flood carrying capacity
of the river has been considerably reduced due to encroachments
and waste dumps resulting in flooding of its banks every year and
this was also reported by NEERI in its report of 2005. The
Committee has suggested that new wetland habitats should be
created for biodiversity conservation, whenever feasible, and inter-
connectedness between wetlands for water movement and
exchange should be promoted. The Expert Committee, for the
reasons stated in its Report, suggested that the YRFD plan of DDA
is untenable and should be stopped. It has already been placed on
record that the DDA itself admits in their proposed re-delineation
of ‘O Zone’, in terms of the public notice issued by it on 28th
September, 2013, that the ‘River Front’ refers to an area that lies
outside the embankments of a river, but the area of the proposed
YRFD plan is within the active floodplain. Thus, it is recommended
that this YRFD scheme should be replaced by another plan for
restoration of the river and its floodplain, as suggested by the
Expert Committee and accepted by the High Powered Committee.
We direct that all the recommendations of the Expert Committee,
including the above, should be implemented without any further
delay.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 6 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
xxxx
94. (V) (d) We direct all the concerned authorities including the
DDA, Municipal Corporations, and the NCT of Delhi, to take
immediate and effective steps for repossessing the Flood Plain
area under the unauthorized and illegal occupation of any person
and/or any other body.”
8. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in LPA No. 276/2020,
the petitioners therein approached the learned National Green Tribunal
by filing M.A. No. 07/2021 in O.A. No. 285/2020, seeking
appropriate directions and relief. By way of the order dated
02.02.2021, the learned National Green Tribunal clarified that its
jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010, is limited to providing remedies to victims of pollution and
does not extend to entertaining pleas against demolition. It was further
clarified that matters concerning demolition and rehabilitation fall
within the jurisdiction of the appropriate courts and not the learned
National Green Tribunal.
9. The petitioner union asserts that approximately 800 jhuggis
have already been demolished by the DDA, and no arrangements have
been made for temporary shelter for the affected families. It is
contended that while the demolition was carried out in the name of
environmental concerns, the DDA has, to date, failed to provide any
temporary shelter to the petitioners. Furthermore, it is alleged that the
entire area has been dug up, leading to the accumulation of stagnant
and dirty water, thereby adversely impacting both the environment
and the residents. As a result, the living conditions at the Basti situated
in Dhobi Ghat have deteriorated significantly, rendering the area
unhygienic and uninhabitable.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 7 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
10. The petitioner union asserts that the right to housing is an
essential facet of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, 1950. Constitutional courts have interpreted the
right to shelter as the right to adequate shelter, ensuring privacy and
security beyond mere existence. It is submitted that the State is duty-
bound to provide proper housing, as the right to adequate shelter is
interlinked with other fundamental rights, and its violation adversely
affects their enjoyment.
11. The petitioner union puts forth that the DUSIB as the
designated Nodal Agency is legally obligated to undertake the
rehabilitation of the affected residents. Furthermore, under Section 3
(1) (a) of The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Second Act, 2011, JJ clusters in Delhi are required to be
rehabilitated. The relevant provisions are as follows:
“3. Enforcement to be kept in abeyance.–
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any relevant law or any
rules, regulations or byelaws made thereunder, the Central
Government shall before the expiry of this Act, take all possible
measures to finalise norms, policy guidelines, feasible strategies and
make orderly arrangements to deal with the problem of
encroachment or unauthorized development in the form of
encroachment by slum dwellers and Jhuggi-Jhompri clusters, 1 ***
unauthorised colonies, village abadi area (including urban villages),
and their extensions, existing farm houses involving construction
beyond permissible building limits and schools, dispensaries,
religious institutions, cultural institutions, storages, warehouses and
godowns used for agricultural inputs or produce (including dairy and
poultry) in rural areas built on agricultural land, as mentioned
below:–
(a) orderly arrangements for relocation and rehabilitation
of slum dwellers and Jhuggi- Jhompri clusters in Delhi in
accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board Act, 2010 (Delhi Act 7 of 2010) andSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 8 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 to ensure its development
in a sustainable planned and humane manner;”
STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.2/DUSIB
12. In its counter affidavit dated 22.07.2021, DUSIB contends that
the writ petition arises from a Public Interest Litigation and should be
dismissed for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure under the
Delhi High Court Rules and the Delhi High Court (Public Interest
Litigation) Rules, 2010. It is further argued that the petitioner union’s
status is unspecified, with no indication of it being a society, trust,
firm, or corporation. As the petitioner union is not a natural person,
the petition is claimed to be non-maintainable.
13. DUSIB submits that, as per the petitioner union’s own
pleadings, the alleged demolition was carried out by the DDA, which
is also the land-owning agency in the present case. Therefore, DUSIB
asserts that it has no role in either the demolition or the rehabilitation
of the petitioner union’s members. Acknowledging that it is a
statutory board constituted under the DUSIB Act, 2010, and has been
designated as the Nodal Agency for the relocation of Jhuggi Jhopri
Bastis situated on land owned by the Delhi Government or its
agencies. However, referring to Section 10(3) of the DUSIB Act, it is
submitted that if a Jhuggi Jhopri Basti is on land belonging to the
Central Government or its agencies, removal and resettlement require
prior consent from the concerned authority. It is thus stated that
DUSIB has no binding obligation to undertake such resettlement on
Central Government land.
14. It is brought to the fore that there is approximately 675 + 82 JJ
Bastis located on land belonging to various government departments
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 9 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
or agencies, including the subject JJ Cluster, which is part of the
additional list of 82 identified clusters in Delhi. Moreover, as per the
prevailing policy, DUSIB undertakes rehabilitation or relocation only
upon receiving a request from the concerned land-owning agency, i.e.,
DDA herein, a procedure that is within the petitioner union’s
knowledge.
15. Lastly, it is submitted that the DDA has its own relocation
policy7 for JJ Clusters and has devised a phased rehabilitation plan for
those situated on its land. Regarding the petitioner union’s request for
temporary shelter with essential facilities, it is contended that this
responsibility falls under the Delhi Disaster Management Authority of
the respondent No. 3, which is tasked with mitigating the socio-
economic impact of disasters. Reliance is placed on this Court’s order
dated 05.03.2018 in W.P.(C) 1997/20188, where the land-owning
agency and respondent No. 3 were directed to address the shelter,
food, and educational needs of the displaced population following a
demolition.
STAND OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1/DDA
16. The DDA submits that the petitioner union lacks the locus
standi to maintain the present writ petition, as its members are alleged
to be unauthorized encroachers on the subject site. It is contended that
the petitioner union has failed to furnish any details or documentary
evidence to substantiate its claim of inhabiting the subject site since
the 1990s. On the contrary, the DDA asserts that the petitioner union’s
7 Policy guidelines for relocation of the Jhuggi clusters in Delhi; dated 03.03.2004 [No. F
2(1)2001/LMCPLA/86]
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 10 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
members encroached upon the subject site only a few months prior to
the demolition and, therefore, have no legal right to unlawfully occupy
government land, which forms part of the Yamuna floodplains.
17. The DDA states that the Basti on the subject site was acquired
through Award No. 51/81-82 dated 09.02.1982 and Award No. 95/83-
84 dated 24.02.1984. Under Award No. 51/81-82, 34 bighas 8 biswas
of land at Khasra No. 279, Village Okhla, were acquired, with
physical possession of 31 bighas 11 biswas handed over to the DDA
by the Land Acquisition Collector 9 on 02.03.1982. Similarly, under
Award No. 95/83-84, land at Khasra Nos. 477/306, 478/306, 482/306,
and 302 of Village Okhla was acquired. Physical possession of 9
bighas 11 biswas at Khasra No. 302, 2 bighas 17 biswas at Khasra No.
477/306, 2 bighas 18 biswas at Khasra No. 478/306, and 14 biswas at
Khasra No. 482/306 was transferred to the DDA by the LAC on
14.03.1984.
18. It is further contended that no right to sue accrues in favour of
the petitioner union, as its members are unauthorized encroachers on
land that has been duly acquired by the DDA, with physical
possession also vested in the DDA. The DDA submits that the
demolition of the Basti situated on the subject site was carried out in
compliance with the orders of the learned National Green Tribunal, as
the site forms part of the River Yamuna floodplains. Reliance is
placed on the order dated 07.10.2020 in Shakil Ahmed v. DDA10,
wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that any relief sought
8 Pooja Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
9 LAC
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 11 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
by persons affected by such demolitions, where the land forms part of
the River Yamuna floodplains, ought to be pursued before the learned
National Green Tribunal alone.
19. It is averred that, under the DUSIB and the JJ Rehabilitation
and Relocation Policy, 2015, not every JJ dweller or JJ Basti/cluster is
automatically entitled to alternate housing. Reliance is placed on
Clause 2(a)(i) of Part A of the 2015 Policy, which explicitly states that
only JJ Bastis established before 01.01.2006 shall not be removed or
demolished without providing alternate housing. Further, Clause
2(a)(ii) specifies that no jhuggi that came up after 01.01.2015 shall be
eligible for alternate housing. Additionally, Clause I of Part B of the
2015 Policy outlines 11 eligibility criteria for the allotment of
alternate dwelling units for the rehabilitation and relocation of JJ
dwellers.
20. In summary, the stand of the DDA is that no habitation,
occupation, or construction is permitted on the Yamuna floodplains,
as consistently upheld by the Courts. In Anand Arya & Anr. v. UOI
& Ors.11, this Court, based on a committee’s recommendations, halted
the ‘Times Global Village Festival’ to safeguard the ecological
integrity of the floodplains. Similarly, in Manoj Mishra v UOI &
Ors 12, the learned National Green Tribunal, vide judgment dated
07.12.2017, held the Art of Living organization responsible for
environmental degradation and directed the restoration of the
floodplains, including the establishment of a Biodiversity Park as part
10 LPA 276/2020
11 W.P.(C) No. 2344/2007
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 12 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
of DDA’s Phase II plan. It was reiterated that the River Yamuna
floodplains must not be used for occupation, construction, or
habitation, and it is the responsibility of the DDA to preserve their
natural ecology.
21. It is further submitted that the DDA, in compliance with the
aforesaid judgments, has undertaken extensive restoration of the River
Yamuna floodplains and about 100 hectares of floodplain land,
surrendered by the Art of Living and re-possessed by the DDA, has
been developed into a green area named Kalindi Aviral, with various
species of trees, shrubs, and riverine grasses planted. Additionally, the
DDA has developed 90 hectares at Asita East and 93 hectares at Asita
West. It is averred that similar efforts to transform the remaining
floodplain areas into green zones are ongoing. Further, by judgment
dated 30.09.2019 in Jagdev v. Lt. Governor13, the learned National
Green Tribunal, while addressing encroachments on the River
Yamuna riverbed, reiterated that the floodplains cannot be occupied,
as such encroachments harm the river’s ecology.
22. The DDA emphatically points out that the jhuggis on the
subject site are situated alarmingly close to the River Yamuna. This
encroachment, so near to the river, poses a severe threat to the
environment and stands in blatant defiance of the unequivocal orders
passed by the learned National Green Tribunal, undermining the very
integrity of the river’s floodplains.
12 OA No. 65/2016, OA No. 76/2016 and OA No. 81/2016
13 O.A. No. 622/2019
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 13 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AT THE BAR
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner union heavily relied on the
Additional JJ Clusters List published by DUSIB, wherein the Basti on
the subject site is listed at Serial No. 10, asserting that the respondents
are bound by the DUSIB Relocation Policy, 2015, that makes all its
residents qualify for rehabilitation under both the 2015 Policy and the
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana 14. It was pointed out that the petitioner
union’s Basti is among the 82 additional JJ clusters identified in Delhi,
as admitted by DUSIB in its counter affidavit dated 22.07.2021.
Furthermore, DUSIB has acknowledged that the DDA never
communicated with it regarding demolition or rehabilitation before
initiating action.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner union countered the assertion
of the DDA and submitted that the DDA has misled the Court that no
dwellers resided there before 2015 and in this regard relied on Google
Maps imagery from 2004 to 2022, unmistakably showing the
settlement at Dhobi Ghat, Batla House. Maps from 2011 to 2021,
including post-demolition images from 2020 and 2021, further
confirm the continuous presence of jhuggi residents well before the
2015 cut-off date. It was urged that despite multiple demolitions, the
residents were never rehabilitated, forcing them into a cycle of
displacement within the same vicinity. Google Earth images from
2004 to 2010 reinforce the long-standing existence of the slum cluster,
aligning with the 2015 Policy’s eligibility criteria.
14 PMAY Scheme
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 14 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
25. In order to substantiate their claim that the residents are entitled
to be rehabilitated, the petitioner union has submitted authenticated
documents, including bank passbooks, school certificates, birth and
national population registration slips, ration cards, Aadhaar cards, and
voter ID cards, all linked to the jhuggis’ address and dated before
2015. Reliance is placed on Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation & Ors. 15, wherein the Supreme Court upheld
the right to shelter and the necessity of fair documentation for slum
dwellers, reinforcing the legitimacy of the petitioner union’s claims.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner union pointed out that in
2011-12, the DDA demolished the entire jhuggi, rendering its
residents homeless and forcing them to live on the streets. Despite
conducting a survey at the time, the respondents failed to rehabilitate a
single person, compelling the evicted residents to remain on the debris
and that over time, they relocated just meters away from the
demolished site but then in September 2020, the respondents carried
out another demolition without a prior survey, in violation of
established standards. It was urged that the demolition, purportedly
carried out in the name of environmental preservation, failed to
provide temporary shelters, leaving a hazardous site with stagnant
water, endangering public health; and that despite this Court’s
direction for immediate sanitation and shelter arrangements, the
respondents provided inadequate and inaccessible facilities,
disregarding court orders. Reliance is placed on the 2015 Policy,
15 1986 AIR 180
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 15 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
which, in line with judicial precedents such as Ajay Maken & Ors.
vs. UOI & Ors.16 and Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi17,
mandates rehabilitation for slum dwellers through proper surveys and
documentation.
27. Controverting the aforesaid contentions, Ms. Shobhana Takiar,
Standing Counsel for the DDA, has assailed the locus standi of the
petitioner union. Additionally, she has pointed that the petition is
silent on the crucial aspect of the exact area under challenge. It is
urged that while the petition names the alleged JJ Basti as Dhobi
Ghat, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, South Delhi, Delhi-110025,
it fails to provide any site plan, latitude/longitude coordinates,
identified boundaries, or a clear map depicting its precise location. It
is pointed out that on the other hand the DDA had submitted records
clarifying the site’s location before this Court, as duly recorded in the
Order dated 09.09.2021.
28. Learned counsel for the DDA has vehemently urged that the
petitioner union has deliberately concealed the fact that the alleged
Basti is situated squarely on the River Yamuna floodplains and is a
significant source of pollution to the river. It was urged that the
occupants of the subject site are causing substantial environmental
harm. It is further argued by the DDA that the site and hutments where
demolition was carried out by the DDA do not form part of the 675
identified JJ Bastis listed by DUSIB.
16 AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 523
17 (2010) 168 DLT 218
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 16 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
29. It is vehemently urged that not every JJ dweller or JJ Basti is
automatically entitled to alternate housing or in-situ rehabilitation, nor
is a survey a matter of right. Referring to Clause 2(a)(i) of the 2015
Policy (Part A) it is urged that only those JJ Bastis established prior to
01.01.2006 shall not be removed without providing alternate housing.
Clause 2(a)(ii) further states that no jhuggis established after
01.01.2015 shall be provided alternate housing. Additionally, it is
urged that Clause 1 of Part B outlines 11 eligibility criteria for
allotment of alternate housing for rehabilitation and the JJ Basti in
question, located in Village Okhla, is on land acquired by the DDA,
the details of which have been provided in the DDA’s counter-
affidavit.
30. It is lastly argued on behalf of the DDA that the JJ Basti in
question is not part of the list of 675 identified JJ Bastis compiled by
DUSIB and thus being an unlisted Basti, no protection is available
under DUSIB’s 2015 Policy. It is submitted that this Court has
consistently clarified through numerous judgments, including
decisions by coordinate benches, the Division Bench of this Court,
and the Supreme Court, that only identified Bastis are entitled to
protection, and that these identified Bastis cannot be removed or
demolished without being provided alternate housing. Reliance has
been placed on Tejpal Gautam & Ors. v. Central Public Works
Department18, Shakarpur Slum Union v. DDA & Anr. 19, Dinesh
18 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10484
19 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2236
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 17 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
Singh v. DDA & Ors. 20, Yamuna Khadar Slum Union v. DDA &
Ors.21.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
31. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by the learned counsels for the parties at the Bar. I have also
perused the relevant record of the case.
32. First things first, there is merit in the plea advanced by the
learned Standing Counsel for the DDA that there is a serious issue
with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner union. There is no
clear averment as to the status of the petitioner union, in the sense that
it is not clear as to whether it is a Society, Trust, Firm, or Corporation.
No rules and regulation governing the affairs of the petitioner union
have been placed on record. There is no clear indication of its office-
bearers, so much so that even the identities of the persons who have
filed the vakalatnama are not disclosed. The petitioner union is not a
natural legal person and, therefore, has no right to file the present
petition in a representative capacity.
33. Be that as it may, even assuming for the sake of convenience
that the petitioner union is espousing the case of some very
impoverished persons, who are alleged to have been in occupation of
various tract of land in question, the present petition lacks
foundational facts, such as the exact extent of the land under challenge
and its geographical location. The petition does no rely on any site
plan. No details regarding the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates
20 W.P.(C) 9625/2022 dated 04.08.2022
21 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4634
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 18 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
or boundaries have been placed on record, resulting in a lack of clarity
concerning the location of the subject site claimed to be in possession
of the petitioner union. In fact, regarding possession itself, there is a
contradictory stand, inasmuch as it is admitted that, on multiple
occasions, some of the members of the petitioner union have been
evicted, yet they return, reoccupy, and continue to live on the subject
site.
34. It is interesting to take note that the petition acknowledges that
some similarly situated persons from the alleged JJ Cluster had also
challenged the demolition action on the part of the DDA in the case of
Shakil Ahmed v. DDA 22, which was dismissed by this Court as well.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid precedent, the present petition
must be summarily rejected on this ground alone.
35. Anyhow, upon careful examination of the records, it is
abundantly clear that the Basti located at Dhobi Ghat, Batla House,
Jamia Nagar, Okhla, South Delhi, Delhi-110025, lies within the
floodplain/riverbed of the River Yamuna. The DDA has unequivocally
stated that the subject site was acquired through Award No. 51/81-82
dated 09.02.1982 and Award No. 95/83-84 dated 24.02.1984,
specifically for developing a Biodiversity Park under Phase II of its
plan. Since 1982, the DDA has taken physical possession of the land,
further solidifying its legal rights over the property. This acquisition
and possession serve as irrefutable evidence of the DDA’s lawful
control over the site, underscoring that any unauthorized occupation is
22
W.P.(C) 7032/2020 dated 25.09.2020 and LPA 276/2020 dated 07.10.2020
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 19 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
not only unlawful but also detrimental to the integrity of the planned
development.
36. The DDA avers that as part of the restoration and rejuvenation
of the River Yamuna Floodplains, the entire area has been divided into
10 modules/blocks, with the subject site falling within the designated
Biodiversity Park to be developed by the DDA. The DDA further
refutes the petitioner union’s claim of inhabiting the site since 1990,
asserting that satellite images of the subject site, with geo-coordinates
of Latitude 28.569263° and Longitude 77.290282°, confirm that the
site was a green belt, devoid of any structures, as recent as 2016 and
2019. It would be apposite to reproduce the Google Maps imagery for
the sake of convenience: –
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 20 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
37. In summary, there can be no iota of doubt that the petitioner
union, being rank tress-passers and unlawfully occupying a portion of
the subject site, is causing immense harm and pollution to the River
Yamuna, as exemplified from the photographs placed on the record. It
goes without saying that there is a plethora of case laws on the subject
of encroachment, unauthorized occupation, and constructions on the
River Yamuna floodplains, as well as the relocation of displaced
persons, as adjudicated by this Court. In the case of Haq Through its
Member Abdul Shakeel v. DDA23, a Division Bench of this Court
dealt with approximately 100 families of farmer community residing
in Village Chiraga South, located on the River Yamuna floodplains. In23 W.P.(C) 2029/2012 dated 03.04.2013
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 21 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
a challenge against the demolition action that removed the temporary
thatched huts of these individuals, the Court observed that petitioners
therein, despite farming and residing on the land, were not its owners
and had no legal right thereto. It was held that by removing the
encroachment, the DDA was merely complying with the directions of
the Division Bench in W.P.(C) 211/2022 dated 03.03.2003.
Furthermore, the Court observed that, since there was permanent
habitation on the land in question, the issue of rehabilitating those
occupying the land did not arise.
38. In another bunch of matters decided by the Division Bench of
this Court in LPA No. 479/2013 24, the Division Bench dealt with a
dispute concerning land leased out to various societies, including Jheel
Khuranja Cooperative Milk Producers Society Limited and Delhi
Peasants Cooperative Multipurpose Society Limited, measuring
approximately 7,938 bighas 12 biswas. The government had
determined the lease, vesting the land in the DDA. When several
petitioners, claiming to be in occupation of the land and making
payments to the aforesaid two Societies, challenged their eviction, the
Court dismissed the challenge. It held, inter alia, that the earlier
decision of the Coordinate Bench 25, wherein the eviction order against
those who were similarly placed had been upheld, was binding in
respect of the appeals before this Court with respect to the petitioners.
24 Sunil Kmar v. DDA dated 31.01.2018
25 Smt. Dhan Kaur v. DDA W.P.(C) 3797/1991
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 22 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
39. Similarly, in Uday Raj v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 26, which
involved dislocation of petitioners and other residents from a tract of
land along the western bank of the River Yamuna behind the Tibetan
Colony at Majnu K Tila, the Court found the case concerned re-
encroachment. The petitioners, after an initial demolition, had shifted
to nearby areas and raised temporary jhuggis/makeshift
sheds/chappars. The Court held that the petitioners could not take
advantage of their own wrongful act and, therefore, were not entitled
to any relief. Furthermore, in the absence of any rehabilitation policy,
the petitioners had no right to claim resettlement from the government.
In another case, Yamuna Bank Kishan Bachao Morcha v. State of
NCT of Delhi27, a Coordinate Bench of this Court considered a
petition filed by a Society comprising of farmers who claimed to be
inhabitants on the banks of the River Yamuna for over 100 years
growing vegetables and this Court referring to earlier decision of this
Court observed as under:
“26. The writ petition shows that the petitioners are growing crops
of Radish, Brinjal, Potato, etc. which is clearly prohibited by the
order of the National Green Tribunal. The National Green Tribunal
by order dated 13.01.2015 has observed as under:-
“51. Unauthorised activities are being carried out on the
floodplain and at some places they have even encroached
up to the riverbed of Yamuna. Agricultural products raised
from these areas have shown to be injurious to human
health, primarily for the reasons that the river carries very
high pollutants, including heavy-metals and acidic
elements. One of the studies brought on record which is
even supported by the United Nations, is the first to link
river contamination with adverse impacts on human
health. According to this study, around 23% of children26 W.P.(C) 9342/2018 dated 09.10.2018
27 W.P. (Crl.) 2035/2020 dated 01.02.2022Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 23 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
had lead levels in their blood above 10 micro grams – a
widely accepted guideline – whose adverse health effects
have been noted. The study said high level of lead in blood
was eight times more when exposed to the riverbank after
Wazirabad in north Delhi, compared to rural areas
upstream in Haryana, where river water contamination
was found to be less. Heavy metals such as lead are more
readily absorbed by children as compared to adults. The
resultant disasters would be impairment of motoring skills,
onset and development of hypertension and may even
result in slow cognitive development. Water and soil
samples were lifted every 2 km, starting, from Wazirabad
Barrage and covered 22 km of the river in the capital. The
presence of heavy metals increased after Wazirabad even
though every drop of water that flows in the river .in Delhi
has to be cleaned through Sewage Treatment and Effluent
Treatment Plants. Presence of heavy metals was negligible
in Haryana. Hexavalent chromium, said to be hazardous
was found to be highest at Old Yamuna Bridge and
Indraprastha Estate Power Plant. This is the area where
maximum vegetables are grown on riverbed. At this point
there is also heavy industrial discharge into the river.
52. Agricultural activities must be carried on as it is
essential for our day to day living, but, agriculture produce
that will lead to greater harm to human health must be
checked and if necessary should also be, stopped. The
principle of ‘Inter-generational Equity’ would require that
today’ younger’ generation should not be exposed’ to
serious health hazards and thus, it will not only be
desirable but essential that such contaminated
produce/vegetables are not offered for consumption to the
people at large. The Principle of Comparative Hardship
would clearly mandate that where the injury is n much;
greater in proportion to the benefit that would accrue as a
result of such activity, the activity must be stopped in the
larger interest of the public and of public health.”
27. In the absence of any title, the prayer for mandamus
commanding the respondents No.2 to take action against the
respondents No.3 to 9 is not maintainable. If the petitioner feels
that an offence has been committed, then the correct remedy for the
petitioner is to approach the competent court by filing an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Apex Court in Sakiri
Basu vs. State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Priyanka Srivastava
vs. State of UP, (2015) 6 SCC 287 had directed that the High Court
must not entertain writ petitions seeking direction to the Police for
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 24 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
registration of an FIR and the complainants must be delegated to
approach the competent court by filing the application under
Section 156(3) CrPC.
28. Since the records show that the members of the
petitioner/society are in unlawful occupation, the relief for
compensation on the ground of DDA damaging the crop is not
maintainable. This writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the
process of law and another attempt by the members of the
petitioner Society to cling on to the land while they have already
been held to be unauthorized occupants and encroachers. The
members of the petitioner Society have, therefore, violated the
undertaking given to the Apex Court. Since the petitioner claims
that their members are farmers, this Court is not imposing costs on
the petitioner Society.”
40. In another decision by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Randheer v. Commissioner of Police28, arising out of W.P.(C)
11871/2022 dated 15.03.2023, the petitioners, who were the occupants
of jhuggis at T-Huts, Moolchand Basit-1, Rajghat, New Delhi-110002,
sought a stay on the demolition of their jhuggis as well as their
rehabilitation. The Court, inter alia, affirmed that only occupants of
the notified clusters, as per the DUSIB records, would be entitled for
rehabilitation. In Court on its own motion v. Union of India 29, the
Court took cognizance of perils of water logging, flooding, and the
consequent collapse of civil services in Delhi, particularly due to the
fury of River Yamuna. Taking note of various plans proposed by
different government agencies, the Court issued the following
directions concerning the restoration and rejuvenation of the River
Yamuna floodplains:
“E) Restoration and rejuvenation of Yamuna River Flood
Plains28 LPA 196/2023 dated 11.10.2023
29 Wpc 7594/2018 dated 08.04.2024Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 25 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
20. DDA in coordination with all concerned agencies is hereby
directed to ensure removal of encroachments from Yamuna River
Flood Plains. Delhi Police shall provide necessary force to the
DDA as and when requested, to maintain law and order during
such encroachment removal drives to remove encroachment from
Yamuna Flood Plains.
21. Further, DDA shall submit an action taken report on
development of ten bio-diversity parks / wetland areas in Yamuna
River Flood Plain including an action plan with timelines for
completion of pending projects. Cities and Towns around India,
which have been developed along rivers, are doing horticulture and
green development of river fronts for their citizens as symbols of
urban pride.
22. DDA shall explore green horticultural development of river
fronts and recreational zones with public amenities to increase
public participation and awareness about rejuvenation of River
Yamuna in accordance with extant guidelines.
23. It is necessary to do green development of the banks of the
Yamuna as wetlands and public spaces, parks for open green
spaces, access to civic amenities, zones of entertainment or
playgrounds for the children. This will lead to buy-in by the
common citizen, a sense of ownership and consequent pressures on
the authorities to ensure maintenance. All this will go hand in hand
with ecological restoration, maintenance, and protection of the
flood plains.
24. A large number of religious devotees pray at different
locations, discharging solid waste in the river water, adding to an
already serious problem. Recognising this need of the residents of
the State, DDA should construct select number of ghats or
platforms on stilts along the riverbank, for such purposes to ensure
that the devotees get space and the authorities are able to deal with
the challenge of waste scientifically.
25. With respect to forty-four (44) number of court cases pertaining
to encroachment in Yamuna River Flood Plain (a list of which is
handed over by the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, in Court) pending
before various Benches of this Court, let the Registry club all such
cases and list all Division Bench cases before a Division Bench
presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli and all Single
Bench cases before the Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh
Sharma for early disposal in accordance with law.
F) Rejuvenation of River Yamuna
26. DDA, being the designated owner of the Yamuna Flood plains,
is also hereby directed to ensure removal of construction waste /
debris from the Yamuna river accumulated during constructions of
bridges, rail lines, metro lines, regional rail network, etc. and forSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 26 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
this purpose the DDA may call upon the concerned agencies like
DMRC, PWD, NCRTC, MCD, etc. to remove such debris by 30th
June, 2024 failing which DDA shall take up works for cleaning of
such construction waste / debris at the cost of defaulters.
27. DDA shall also declare nodal officers for each stretch of the
flood plain who would be responsible for sustained upkeep of their
jurisdictional area free from encroachment and free of construction
& demolition (“C & D”) waste.
28. MCD shall also develop a large facility of requisite capacity to
convert 100% C & D waste generated in this city into aggregate
(Rodi)/ tiles/paver blocks etc. for use in public infrastructure.
29. Bio-gas plants shall also be installed near all the nine
authorised dairies in Delhi for creation of dry manure and biogas
fuel / Compressed Biogas (CBG) production, for which an action
plan along with timelines shall be prepared within a period of four
weeks of passing of this order.
30. Further, during the recent flooding of river Yamuna, it has been
observed that the 22 km stretch of Yamuna flowing through Delhi
is no longer navigable. The riverbed is so high and the river so
shallow that it can no longer support any aquatic life. Because of
the high riverbed, every monsoon sees an overflow of the river
water, many a times causing floods. We have been informed that
the river has been consistently becoming shallow and hence lacks
the capacity to carry excess water during the monsoon or maintain
life during the rest of the year. Hence, we see the Yamuna
becoming a veritable putrid drain, especially during the summer
months.
31. DDA shall take up the matter with concerned authorities, such
as Irrigation and Flood Control, National Ganga Mission etc., for
carrying out controlled and scientific dredging for removal of silt
both upstream and downstream and for creation of series of small
ponds adjoining the river to improve the carrying capacity of the
river Yamuna. This becomes more so important after the floods
seen during the year 2023. This exercise shall be done on a war
footing and be completed by 30th June, 2025. DDA, being an
agency under GoI and the other concerned departments being
under the jurisdiction of GoI as well as GNCTD, a mechanism for
seamless coordination should be put in place within a period of
four weeks of passing of this order.
32. Further, GNCTD is hereby directed to submit an action taken
report to this Court to increase the existing capacity of STPs from
667 MGD to 964.5 MGD within a period of four weeks of passing
of this order and to ensure that treated water from these STPs shall
meet the prescribed norms viz., pH (5.5-9.0), BOD (10 mg/l), TSS
(20 mg/l), COD (50 mg/l), N-Tota1 (10 mg/l), Phosphorus Total (1Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 27 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
mg/l). NH4-N (5 mg/l) and Fecal Coliform (<230 MPN/100ml),
the existing capacity of STPs shall be increased from 667 MGD to
964.5 MGD by 31st March, 2025. It is not out of context to
mention that such parameters were recommended by the Expert
Committee and accepted by the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”)
vide its judgment dated 30th April, 2019 in OA No. 1069/2018
titled ‘Nitin Shankar Deshpande vs. Union of India‘; and such
decision of NGT was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
its order dated 17th May, 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5036 of 2019
titled ‘Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Nitin Shankar
Deshpande‘. This is required so that no untreated sewage is
dumped into river Yamuna beyond 31st March, 2025 at any cost.
33. GNCTD is directed to undertake requisite work for capturing
sewage in the unauthorised colonies and Jhuggi Jhopri (JJ) clusters
as per its existing policy so as to ensure that 100% sewage can be
captured and untreated sewage is not dumped into river Yamuna,
but rather diverted to in situ waste treatment plants and only treated
water is released into Yamuna.”
41. The issue whether persons staying on the River Yamuna
floodplains have any right under the Rehabilitation Policy was
considered by this Court in the case of Bela Estate Mazdor Basti
Samiti v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board30, wherein it
was held as under:
“26. The moot question to be addressed in the present writ petition is
whether the Petitioners, who are admittedly jhuggi dwellers staying at
the Yamuna Flood Plains, have any right under law for the
rehabilitation.
27. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the decision of this
Court in Shobha Dikshit case (supra), where this Court dealt with a
writ petition praying for similar reliefs. In that case, this Court also
dealt with the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner in present case
i.e. Sudama Singh (supra) and Ajay Maken (supra), and it was held as
follows:
“46. Further, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dinesh Singh & Ors. Vs
Delhi Development Authority & Ors., W.P. (C) 12384/2022,
wherein the Court after considering the various judgments of
this Court observed as follows:
30 MANU/DE/2084/2023
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 28 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
“11. From the decisions aforenoted, it is manifest that a
cluster in order to be eligible for extension of benefits
under the Rehabilitation Policy must necessarily meet
the qualifying criteria as specified in Section 2(g) of
the Act. Consequently, it must be a notified cluster
comprising of not less than 50 jhuggis. The aforesaid
cluster must additionally form part of the 675 clusters
which had been identified by the DUSIB. The recitals
and recordal of facts of the present case leads the Court
to the inescapable conclusion that the cluster in
question would not meet those requirements. In view
of the aforesaid, the reliefs as claimed cannot possibly
be granted. 12. The Court deems it apposite to observe
further that neither Sudama Singh nor Ajay Maken
mandate a rehabilitation measure being adopted and
coverage under the Rehabilitation Policy being
extended without the cluster otherwise conforming to
the requirements as placed under the Act. The Court
also bears in mind that the undisputed fact that the
Rehabilitation Policy which was placed in the shape of
a protocol in Ajay Maken was neither interfered with
nor any adverse observation in respect thereof
entered.”
47. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had similar facts
before it in the case of Shakarpur Slum Union Vs DDA &
Ors., W.P. (C) 6779/ 2021. The Coordinate Bench
distinguished the facts presented before it from the facts
before the Court in Ajay Maken (supra) and Sudama Singh
(supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
extracted hereinbelow:
“33. The reliance of the Petitioner-Union on the
judgment of this Court in Ajay Maken (supra) also
does not hold any water. The judgment of Ajay Maken
(supra) holds to the extent that once a cluster has been
identified under the DUSIB Policy, then the persons
living in that JJ cluster cannot be treated as illegal
encroachers and they cannot be removed from that
location without being rehabilitated in accordance with
the DUSIB Policy. As stated earlier, when the
judgment of Sudama Singh (supra) was pronounced,
there was no policy in place and this Court in Ajay
Maken‘s case was dealing with the cluster which had
been identified by the DUSIB and, therefore, the
members of that cluster were entitled to the benefit of
the DUSIB Policy. The learned counsel for theSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 29 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
Petitioner has contended that a reading of paragraph
171 of the judgment of this Court in Ajay Maken
(supra) indicates that the Division Bench of this Court
has held that the DUSIB Policy, 2015, will apply to all
the jhuggi Clusters alike and that, therefore, regardless
of the fact that the present Cluster is included in the
notified Cluster or not, the protection given by this
Court in the judgment of Sudama Singh (supra) should
be extended to the Petitioners as well. This argument
does not hold water. If this submission is accepted, the
entire DUSIB Policy, 2015, would be rendered
infructuous, and there would have been no necessity
for the DUSIB to bring out the policy restricting the
right of rehabilitation only to those Clusters which
were existing on 01.01.2006 and those jhuggis which
were inside those Clusters as on 01.01.2015. It is the
opinion of this Court that the judgment of Ajay Maken
(supra) has to be read in that light. The said judgment
has not rendered the DUSIB Policy, 2015, as violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The purpose
of the judgments passed by this Court in Sudama Singh
(supra) and Ajay Maken (supra) was not to provide
rehabilitation of the dwellers in the JJ Cluster even if
they have encroached on government land.
Encroachment on government land cannot be said to
be a fundamental right of any person and a person
encroaching upon government land cannot claim that
he is entitled to rehabilitation as a matter of right even
in the absence of any policy bestowing the benefit of
rehabilitation and relocation on the said person.”
48. A Division Bench of this Court was also presented with
similar facts in a LPA and while disposing of the same, the
Ld. Division Bench of this Court observed in its Order dated
19.04.2022, passed in LPA 271/2022, titled as „Vaishali
(Minor) through Next Friend & Ors. Vs Union of India &
Ors.‟, as follows:
“11. A reading of the above provision would clearly
show that DUSIB has to declare a group of jhuggis as
“Jhuggi jhopri basti” by way of notification. One of the
conditions to be fulfilled by such a group of jhuggis is
that it must be inhabited, at least by fifty households,
as existing on 01.01.2006. Section 9 of the Act
empowers the DUSIB to make a survey of any jhuggi
basti. Section 10 of the Act provides for preparation of
a scheme for removal of any JJ basti and for
resettlement of the residents thereof. Section 12 of the
Act provides for the re-development of the JJ basti.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 30 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
The above provisions are applicable only with respect
to “Jhuggi Jhopri basti”, that is, inter-alia a group of
fifty households as existing 01.01.2006 and duly
declared by DUSIB as such by way of a Notification.
12. As noted by the learned Single Judge, the
appellants have been unable to produce any such
notification under Section 2(g) of the Act. Even in
appeal, no such Notification has been produced by the
appellants. The appellants are, therefore, not entitled to
any protection under the Act,
13. As far as the Policy is concerned, the Policy
stipulates “eligibility for rehabilitation or relocation”
only for those JJ basti, which have come up before
01.01.2006. Therefore, for seeking benefit of the said
Policy, it was incumbent on the appellants to show that
their JJ basti was in existence since before 01.01.2006.
Though the learned senior counsel for the appellants
sought to place reliance on a list of families allegedly
residing in the said cluster of jhuggis, and submits that
many therein have been residing much prior to the cut-
off date of 01.01.2006, we find that the addresses
mentioned in the said list vary between different
blocks of Sarojini Nagar. They, therefore, cannot, at
least prima facie, be stated to be forming part of one JJ
basti, entitling them to the benefit of the Policy.
*****
15. As far as the reliance of the appellants on the Draft
Protocol is concerned, the same again applies only to a
JJ basti in existence prior to 01.01.2006, and the
manner in which such determination is to be made. In
the present case, the categorical stand of the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 is that such a determination
was made in the case of the appellants, and the cluster
of jhuggis at Sarojini Nagar was not found in existence
as on 01.01.2006, and therefore, not notified under the
Act. In case the appellants are to dispute the above, it
would be a disputed question of fact, which in any
case, cannot be determined in a writ jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Draft Protocol also cannot come to the
aid of the appellants.
16. As far as the reliance of the appellants on the
judgments of this Court in Sudama Singh (supra) and
Ajay Maken (supra) is concerned, we are again unable
to accept the same. In the referred judgments, this
Court was not dealing with the position where the
respondents were disputing the existence of the JJ
cluster as on 01.01.2006. Therefore, the said judgments
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 31 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
would have no application to the facts of the present
case.
49. Further, it would be apposite here to refer to a decision of
a Single Bench of this Court in Kasturba Nagar Residents
Welfare Association Vs Government of NCT of Delhi &
Ors., W.P.(C) 11945/2022, passed on 13.10.2022, wherein it
observed as follows:
“6. Ultimately it was incumbent upon the petitioners to
have established that they were part of an identified
cluster and formed part of the list of 675+82 bastis
which had been duly identified by DUSIB for the
purposes of extension of benefits under the 2015
Policy. The Court further notes that the decisions
noticed in Dinesh Singh have consistently held that the
question whether the cluster forms part of those which
were identified by DUSIB is determinative of whether
the residents thereof are entitled to extension of
benefits under the 2015 Policy. That was a detailed and
comprehensive exercise which was undertaken by
DUSIB for the purposes of identifying those clusters to
which the relocation and rehabilitation policy would
apply.
7. The Court also notes that the 2015 Policy
incorporated an injunct against recognition and
extension of the benefits envisaged therein to
clusters which may spring into existence thereafter.
Viewed in that light, there appears to be no scope in
law to undertake a fresh exercise to determine whether
a cluster was in existence prior to the cut-off date
prescribed under the 2015 Policy. That issue clearly
attained finality once the list of eligible clusters had
been duly identified by DUSIB. The prayers for the
Court to embark down that path would not only lead to
it being compelled to delve into disputed questions of
fact and a de novo assessment of evidence, it would
also unsettle a position which was statutorily conferred
finality.
8. The Court also bears in mind that the petitioners are
not shown to have assailed their exclusion from the list
of identified clusters at any point of time prior to the
filing of the instant writ petition. The record would
indicate and establish that the identity of clusters
which came to be included for the purposes of
extension of benefits under the 2015 Policy, was a
matter of common public knowledge. It is not the caseSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 32 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
of the petitioners that they were oblivious to their
exclusion from the list of identified JJ bastis. If the
Court were to countenance or entertain a challenge as
suggested in the present petition, it would become an
unending exercise and scuttle the very objective of the
Act and the 2015 Policy.”
50. In view of the authorities discussed hereinabove, the law
is well settled that after coming into force of the DUSIB
policy, 2015, the residents of jhuggis whose jhuggis were not
notified by DUSIB, are not entitled to any rehabilitation or
relocation. Therefore, in light of the decisions mentioned
hereinabove, this Court is not willing to injunct to the
Respondents to provide rehabilitation to the Petitioner or
other residents of the said Jhuggis.”
(Emphasis supplied)
28. It is apposite to also refer to the decision of Division Bench of this
Court in Kasturba Nagar Residents Welfare Association case (supra)
wherein it was held as follows:
“14. The purpose of restricting the benefit of 2015 Policy is
clear from the policy itself which forbade coming up of
jhuggis after 01.01.2015. As rightly pointed out by the
learned Single Judge, no material has been provided by the
Appellant/Association that the cluster, in which its members
are residing, has been identified by the DUSIB. Rather, the
stand of DUSIB is categorical that the area where the
members of the Appellant Association reside does not form a
part of the list identified by the DUSIB for the purpose of
rehabilitation.
15. The contention that the members of the
Appellant/Association have been residing in the basti from
1980 has been denied by the Respondents. Filing documents
to show that they have proof of residence is not conclusive
proof of continuous stay in the area because this Court can
take judicial notice of the fact that persons who stay in such
bastis migrate from the place when they get a better
accommodation or a new job but they continue to have
papers showing these addresses. This issue can only be
decided in proper suit where it has to be established by
leading evidence that they continue to reside in these
addresses.
42. In summary, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has
no hesitation in holding that the petitioner union has no locus standi to
institute the present petition and to espouse the cause of an unknownSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 33 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
numbers of individuals without even specifying the exact area, size, or
location of their plots. Such reliefs cannot be sought in writ
jurisdiction in a blanket manner. The petitioner union has failed to
demonstrate any legal right, title, or interest of its member in the
subject site. At the cost of repetition, the subject site is not even
capable of being inhabited. Moreover, the so-called members of the
petitioner union, being rank tress-passers or unauthorized occupants,
are not entitled to the benefit of any Rehabilitation Policy framed by
the DUSIB. There arises no question of conducting any fresh survey,
let alone awarding compensation to the so-called members of the
petitioner union, who repeatedly return to the subject site and
encroach upon the land after each eviction. The plea that the
respondents have not followed due process of law in carrying out
demolition action cannot be sustained in law. The floodplain area is a
designated prohibited activity zone and serves as a vital element of the
river ecosystem. Encroachment upon this area disrupts the natural
flow of water, resulting in the diversion of watercourses and
contributing to flooding in adjacent regions. In fact, numerous experts
assert that recurring floods in Delhi are largely man-made, primarily
driven by unlawful encroachment on drains and riverbeds, which
obstruct the natural flow of water into and within the River Yamuna,
exacerbating the severity of the floods.
43. Further, the unlawful construction in the area poses a significant
threat to the ecologically sensitive River Yamuna floodplains. Since
the subject site was acquired by the DDA for the channelization and
protection of the River Yamuna, the removal of the petitioner unionSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 34 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
from the subject site serves the greater public interest. In addition, as
per the DUSIB Act, 2010, and the 2015 Policy, not every slum
dweller or JJ Basti is automatically entitled to alternate housing.
Clause 2(a)(i) of the 2015 Policy (Part A) clearly stipulates that only
those JJ Bastis established before January 1, 2006, are entitled to
protection from removal without provision for alternate housing. The
JJ Basti in question is not part of the 675 notified JJ Bastis listed by
DUSIB, further establishing that the residents of the petitioner union
are occupying the area illegally.
44. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed with
costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the petitioner union.
45. The pending applications also stand disposed of.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
MARCH 03, 2025
SadiqSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5822/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 35 of 35
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.03.2025
20:39:14
[ad_1]
Source link