Delhi High Court
Hari Das And Others vs Delhi Development Authority And Others on 1 August, 2025
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on:01.08.2025
+ W.P.(C) 8380/2024 & CM APPL. 34514/2024
HARI DAS AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Kritika Gupta and Ms. Vidushi
Singhania, Advs. for DDA.
Mr. Raghavendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel with
Ms. Purnima Jain and Ms. Chandra Kishore
Yadav, Advs. for R-2 and R-3 and also Mr. Anuj
Chaturvedi, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by nine petitioners seeking
following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ, order, or direction in nature of mandamus staying
the actions of the Respondents of demolishing the jhuggis of the
Petitioners and forcefully evicting them from their dwelling units;
b) Issue a writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside the order
dated 24.08.2023, 15.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 18.09.2023, 23.02.2023
30.08.2023, 30.08.2023, 07.08.2023 of Appellant Authority and
04.07.2023 of Competent Authority of DDA.
c) Issue a writ, order, or direction to set aside the undated
demolition notice issued by the Respondent DDA on 02.07.2023.
d) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondents to provide rehabilitation to theSignature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 1 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
petitioner.”
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that
during the pendency of the present petition, respondent/DDA had
undertaken demolition drive and has demolished the jhuggis of all other
petitioners except jhuggi of petitioner no.5.
3. The grievance ventilated by the petitioners with regard to the order
dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC)
as well as the impugned orders dated 24.08.2023 in Appeal No.338/2023;
15.09.2023 in Appeal No.473/2022; 25.09.2023 in Appeal No.431/2023;
18.09.2023 in Appeal No.143/2022; 23.02.2023 in Appeal No.643/2023;
30.08.2023 in Appeal No.195/2022; 30.08.2023 in Appeal No.10/2022;
07.08.2023 in Appeal No.318/2023 passed by the Appellate Authority and
order dated 04.07.2023 passed by competent authority of DDA.
4. The EDC, the Competent Authority of DDA, as well as, the Appellate
Authority has rejected the claim of petitioners for rehabilitation on the
ground that names of petitioners do not appear in the voter lists for the year
2012 to 2015. On a pointed query posed by the Court as to whether names of
petitioners find mention in the voter lists for the year 2012-2015, Mr. Umesh
Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, fairly concedes
that the names of petitioners are not there in said voter lists.
5. He, however, contends that apart from voter lists, the respondents
ought to have appreciated that petitioners possess other documents from the
list of 12 documents mentioned in Clause 2 of Part-B of the Delhi Slum & JJ
Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 [in short ‘2015 Policy’]. He
places reliance on the decision dated 01.08.2017 of Division Bench of this
Court in W.P. (C) 5378/2017, titled as Udal and Others vs. Delhi Urban
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 2 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
Shelter Improvement Board and Others, wherein the Division Bench
considered the inter-play of the provisions of Clause 1 (iii) of Part-B of the
Policy and the provisions contained in Clause 2, thereby observing that
Clause 1 (iii) and Clause 2 of Part-B of the Policy have to be read conjointly
and not dis-jointly. It was thus, held that the petitioners in the said matter
were entitled to the benefit of the Policy for the reason that they did possess
any one of the 12 documents listed in Clause 2 of Part-B of the 2015 Policy.
6. A perusal of para 3 of the writ petition shows that a specific averment
has also been made therein that the present petition can be tagged along with
writ petition being W.P.(C) 8546/2023, which is pending before this Court.
It is further stated in para 4 that in case the present petition is not tagged
with the aforesaid pending petition, it will cause irreparable loss to
petitioners. The said relevant paras from writ petition are reproduced herein
below for the sake of convenience:
“3. It is further submitted that all these appeals are preferred
against the rejection of their allotment due to the absence of a
ration card for the upper floor. These petitioners can be tagged
along with the pending W.P.(C) 8546/2023, which is being finally
argued before the court on the dispute of the ration card.
4. If this petition is not connected with the pending petition, it will
cause irreparable loss to these petitioners as this petition also
deals with the same issue, and an order passed by the court in the
connected matter would also affect them. No prejudice would be
caused to the respondents as ultimately the question on ration card
if denied by the court would be affecting all the residents of the
camp.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Ms. Kritika Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
DDA submits that W.P.(C) 8546/2023 titled as Mohit Kumar and Ors. v.
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 3 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
DDA and Ors. was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court along
with batch of other writ petitions, vide judgment dated 06.06.2025, in which
W.P.(C) 3350/2023 titled as Seema Das v. DDA and Ors. was the lead case.
8. A perusal of the judgment dated 06.06.2025 of the Coordinate Bench
shows that ground, identical to the one agitated by the petitioners herein,
was specifically dealt with, in the said judgment. The Court, in para 91, also
noted that the ratio in Udal (supra) has been doubted by another Division
Bench of this Court in Radhe Shyam Kori @ Radhe v. GNCT of Delhi,
W.P.(C) No.5568/2025, and the matter was directed to be placed before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench to review the
decision in Udal (supra). Further, the Court in para 96 distinguished the
decision in Udal (supra) on facts, and consequently in para 97 of the
judgment dismissed the writ petitions wherein the claims of the petitioners
therein was rejected on the ground that they did not have their voter identity
cards for any of the years 2012- 2015. The relevant excerpts from the
judgment dated 06.06.2025 read thus:
“88. This category has been the most contentious one. Without
further ado, it is pertinent to mention here that „2015 Policy‟
came to be challenged before this Court in the case of Udal
(supra), particularly with regard to the conditions set out in Part B
of the 2015 Policy. The petitioners were aggrieved by the
stipulation that the name of the JJ dwellers must appear in at
least one of the prescribed voter lists and that they must possess
any one of the twelve documents mentioned in the Clause 2, Part
B of the 2015 Policy.
89. It appears that some of the petitioners were aggrieved that
the EDC had rejected their claims for being ineligible for any
rehabilitation and relocation under the 2015 Policy, for the
reason that their names did not appear in the electoral rolls of the
years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Additionally, some of theSignature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 4 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
petitioners were unable to produce any of the twelve documents
mentioned in the Clause 2 of the Part B of 2015 Policy.
90. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
Court appointed a practicing Advocate of this Court as the Local
Commissioner, with directions to entertain the claims of the
petitioners along with the relevant documents, accord them a
hearing and then submit a report as to their continuous possession
and occupation of their respective jhuggi prior to 01.01.2006. It
was in the said background that the Division Bench of this Court
observed as under: –
“40. 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.”
91. During the course of arguments on 06.06.2025, this Court
was apprised of a recent direction by the Division Bench of this
Court headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice in Radhe Shyam Kori @
Radhe v. GNCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) No.5568/2025 dated
02.05.2025, wherein there was an issue of stay of the demolition of
JJ clusters at Jailorwala Bagh, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, and the
petitioners/parties were seeking in situ rehabilitation in term of the
2015 policy. It appears that the main prayer in the writ petition is
for quashing and/or declaring Clause 1(iii) of Part B of 2015
Policy dated 11.12.2017 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
At this juncture, it may be noted that the petitioners therein are
challenging the constitutional validity of the 2015 Policy, which is
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 5 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
not the case in the instant matters. The learned Judges in the
Division Bench, after considering the entire gamut of the case, had
occasion to pass the following interim order: –
“10. For considering the interim prayer, which is to be
confined to the petitioners, we may refer to certain clauses of
the Policy. The Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi promulgated the said Policy vide issuing an Order dated
11.12.2017. Under the said Policy, Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board has been appointed as Nodal Agency for
relocation/rehabilitation of Jhuggi Jhopri Bastis in respect of
lands belonging to Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi or its
departments/agencies. The Policy contains various parameters
to declare as to who is eligible for rehabilitation or relocation.
It also mandates that the Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi shall ensure that no Jhuggis came up after
01.01.2015. It also provides for in-situ rehabilitation of the
eligible slum dwellers and states that the slum dwellers shall
be provided alternate accommodation either on the same land
or in the vicinity, within a radius of five kilometers. It also
states that in certain exceptional circumstances,
rehabilitation/relocation can take place beyond five kilometers
with prior approval of the Board. Part-B of the said Policy
prescribes the eligibility criteria for allotment of the
alternative dwelling units for the purposes of rehabilitating
and relocating the slum dwellers, according to which, the slum
dweller must be a citizen of India and not less than 18 years of
age, and that the Jhuggi-Jhopri Basti in which the slum
dwellers are residing, must be in existence prior to
01.01.2006. The Policy further lays down a cut-off date for
slum dwellers residing in the Jhuggi-Jhopri for becoming
eligible for rehabilitation, which is 01.01.2015.
11. Clause-1 (i) of Part-B of the Policy prescribes one of the
criteria for assessing the eligibility of slum dwellers for
relocation, according to which the slum dweller must appear
in at least one of the voter lists of the years 2012, 2013, 2014
and 2015 (prior to 01.01.2015), and also in the year of survey,Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 6 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
for the purpose of rehabilitation. Clause-2 of Part-B of the
Policy provides that the slum dweller must possess any one of
the following documents issued before 01.01.2015 to become
eligible for allotment of a dwelling unit; (i) Passport, (ii)
Ration Card with photograph, (iii) Electricity Bill, (iv) Driving
License, (v) Identity Card/Smart Card with photograph issued
by State/Central Government and/or its Autonomous
Bodies/Agencies like PSU/Local Bodies (except EPIC), (vi)
Pass book issued by Public Sector Banks/ Post Office with
photograph, (vii) SC/ST/OBC Certificate issued by the
Competent Authority, (viii) Pension document 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 physically
handicapped with photograph issued by the Competent
Authority, (xi) Health Insurance Scheme Smart card with
photograph (Ministry of Labour Scheme) or (xii) Identity card
with photograph issued in the name of the descendant(s) of the
slum dweller from a Government school or Certificate with
photograph issued by the Principal of a Government School
mentioning therein that the descendant(s) of foe JJ dweller
is/was the student of the school.
12. Thus, in our opinion a slum dweller, apart from being in
possession of any one of the documents mentioned in Clause-2
of Part-B of Policy, should also be included in the voters lists
as per the prescription available in Clause-1 (iii) of Part-B of
the Policy.
13. In the survey conducted by the respondents, the
petitioners were found to be residents of the Jhuggi-Jhopri
concerned, which is enlisted amongst one of the Jhuggi-
Jhopris as notified by the Board. If we peruse, the Scheme
what we find is that a slum dweller having being found to be
residing in the Jhuggi upto a certain period is not enough to
make him eligible for rehabilitation or relocation of dwelling
unit. Apart from that, he also has to be in possession of one
of the documents as spelt out in Para-2 of Part-B of theSignature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 7 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
Policy and in addition thereto, he also needs to be enlisted in
the voter list as per the prescription available in Clause-1 (iii)
of Part-B of the Policy.
14. The petitioners were not found eligible during the survey
for allotment of a dwelling unit. The petitioners, however,
challenged the said decision by filing an appeal which is
provided in the Scheme itself before the Appellate Authority.
The Appellate Authority has been constituted by the Delhi
Urban Shelter Improvement Board. The appeals filed by the
petitioners have been decided by means of the separate
orders passed on 19.09.2024, 25.11.2024 and 27.12.2024,
whereby the claim put forth by the petitioners of being
declared to be eligible for allotment of dwelling units under
the Policy, has been declined on the ground that they could
not fulfill the eligibility criteria as given in Clause-1 (iii) of
Part-B of the Policy, that is to say, their names did not find
place in the voter lists of the years mentioned in the said
clause.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied
upon a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated
01.08.2017, rendered in W.P. (C) 5378/2017, Udal and Others
vs. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Others.
wherein the inter-play of the provisions of Clause-1 (iii) of
Part-B of the Policy and the provisions contained in Clause-2
have been considered and it has been held that Clause-1 (iii)
and Clause-2 of Part-B of the Policy have to be read
conjointly and not dis-jointly. It has further been held that the
petitioners in the said matter were entitled to the benefit of the
Policy for the reason that they did possess anyone of the 12
documents listed in Clause-2 of Part-B of the Policy.
16. If we peruse this Scheme in its totality, what we find is
that Part-B of the Scheme contains 06 clauses; Clause-1
provides “the eligibility criteria for allotment of alternative
dwelling units to rehabilitate or relocate Jhuggi-Jhopri
dwellers”. Clause-1, thus, lists the eligibility criteria, spelt out
in sub-clauses (i) to (xi): Clause-2 of Part-B of the Scheme
provides for a requirement of the slum dweller of being inSignature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 8 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
possession of one of the documents listed therein; Clause-3
provides for Appellate Authority; Clause-4 provides for terms
and conditions of allotment of alternative dwelling units;
Clause-5 provides for maintenance of dwelling units after
allotment; and Clause-6 authorizes the Chief Executive
Officer of the Board to approve the operational guidelines
keeping in view the overall scheme of the Policy.
17. If we examine Clause-1 and Clause-2 of Part-B of the
Policy, in our view, provision of Clause-2 is in addition to
Clause-1. The eligibility criteria has been given in Clause-1
and not in Clause-2. Thus, Clause-1 contains the eligibility
criteria and those fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per
Clause-1, have also to be in possession of one of the
documents mentioned in Clause-2. In fact, in our reading of
Clause-1 and Clause-2 together, what we find is that Clause-
1 provides for the substantive eligibility criteria for assessing
as to whether a particular slum dweller is eligible for
allotment of a dwelling unit or not. We are also of the
opinion that a slum dweller may be eligible for being allotted
a dwelling unit or relocation, if he fulfills the criteria
mentioned in Clause-1 and in addition thereto, he should
also be in possession of one of the documents as set out in
Clause-2.
18. With all respect at our command, we do not find ourselves
in agreement with the observations made in paragraph 39 of
the judgment in Udal (Supra) by the Co-ordinate Bench,
which needs to be reviewed by a Larger Bench. Para 39 of
Udal (supra) is extracted 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 haveSignature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 9 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
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.”
19. In view of the aforesaid, let the record of this petition be
placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger
Bench for authentic pronouncement on the issue as to whether
Udal (supra) lays down the correct law.
20. However, we may also observe that till the matter is decided
by the Larger Bench, the law laid down in Udal (supra) rendered
by the Coordinate Bench is binding.
21. Accordingly, we provide that till further orders, the
dwelling units of the petitioners in Jailorwala Bagh JJ Cluster,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi, shall not be demolished.
{Bold portions emphasized}
92. In the aforesaid backdrop, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the rejection of the claims of the petitioners on the ground
that their names were not found in the voter list for any of the years
2012 to 2015 and/or that the voter identity cards were found to be
fabricated, are also such grounds which are beyond the writ
jurisdiction of this Court and cannot be agitated in the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950,
vested with this Court. The plea that if a voter identity card was
issued in the year 2010, it would be valid for five years, is a long
shot and cannot be sustained. We have to understand the
underlying objective of having such conditions under Clause 2 of
Part B, which obviously means that the petitioner/claimant/JJ
dweller has to show his continuous residence, acclimatization, or
assimilation signifying his belonging to the NCT of Delhi. There
is no presumption in law that once a voter identity card has been
issued, it would be valid for five years.
93. It would be relevant to observe that the case law on the
limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of
certiorari under Article 226 is replete with the proposition that a
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 10 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction
committed by inferior courts or tribunals; for instance, where
orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without
jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise
jurisdiction. A writ can be issued where, in the exercise of
jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal has acted
illegally or improperly, for instance, where it decides a question
without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by
the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the
dispute is opposed to the principles of natural justice.
94. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a
writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction, and the Court
exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This
limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the
inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of
evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings.
Avoiding the temptation to enter into a long academic discussion, it
would suffice to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Shankara Co-Operation Housing Society Ltd vs M. Prabhakar,
(2011) 5 SCC 607, wherein it was held that: –
92. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction will not enquire
into complicated questions of fact. The High Court also does not
sit in appeal over the decision of an authority whose orders are
challenged in the proceedings. The High Court can only see
whether the authority concerned has acted with or without
jurisdiction. The High Court can also act when there is an error
of law apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can
also interfere with such decision where there is no legal evidence
before the authority concerned, or where the decision of the
authority concerned is held to be perverse i.e. a decision which
no reasonable man could have arrived at on the basis of
materials available on record. Where an enquiry into
complicated questions of fact is necessary before the right of
aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be determined, the
Court may, in appropriate cases, decline to enter upon that
enquiry, but the question is always one of discretion and not of
jurisdiction of the Court which may, in a proper case, enter uponSignature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 11 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
a decision on questions of fact raised by the petitioner.
xxx xxx xxx
97. Shri Ranjit Kumar, per contra, has placed reliance on the
observations made by this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr.
Binapani Dei: (AIR p. 1270, para 6)
“6. … Under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court
is not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions
of fact raised by the petition. Where an enquiry into
complicated questions of fact arises in a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution before the right of an
aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be
determined, the High Court may in appropriate cases
decline to enter upon that enquiry and may refer the party
claiming relief to a suit. But the question is one of
discretion and not of jurisdiction of the Court.”
98. In Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, this Court
held as under: (SCC p. 774, para 14)
“14. … The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the
petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its
jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely
because in considering the petitioner’s right to relief questions of
fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the
High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law.
Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the
discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When
the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which
may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken,
and on that account the High Court is of the view that the
dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the
High Court may decline to try a petition.”
95. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, reverting back
to the instant matter, the mere fact that some of the petitioners were
holding voter identify cards for the preceding years prior to the
year 2012 is hardly of any consequence, once we reiterate that the
conditions in Clause 1 and Clause 2 of Part B of 2015 Policy are to
be read conjointly, meaning thereby that apart from satisfying the
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 12 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
requirement of possessing any one of the twelve documents, the next
eligibility criteria must also be fulfilled, i.e., the petitioner/claimant
must be an eligible voter and must possess a voter identity card for
the relevant years, i.e., 2012 to 2015.
96. Although a decision on the issue of twin requirement of
fulfilling conditions in Part B of the 2015 Policy is pending before
the Larger Bench, nothing precludes this Court from deciding the
present matter, since it is pertinent to mention that the decision in
the case of Udal (supra) was rendered in the background where
there was no EDC and/or Appellate Authority to consider the
claims of the petitioners/JJ dwellers therein. The said decision is
clearly distinguishable, rendered in the absence of such
framework of the quasi-judicial authorities, and it took the Court
appointed Local Commissioner almost six months to submit a
report, which then led to the passing of the decision by the
Coordinate Bench.
97. The sum and substance is that the writ petitions under this
category have to be considered in light of 2015 Policy, and the
conditions of which have clearly been explained hereinbefore. As
a result, this Court has no hesitation in dismissing the present
bunch of writ petitions wherein the rejection of the claims of
the petitioners is based on their not having voter identity cards
for any of the years 2012- 2015.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. It is an admitted position that the names of petitioners do not appear
in the voter lists of the year 2012 to 2015 and that the claim of the
petitioners has duly been considered and subsequently rejected via
impugned orders passed by concerned EDC, appellate authority and
competent authority of DDA. Therefore, the case of petitioners is similar to
the petitioner(s) in W.P.(C) 8546/2023, which stood dismissed along with
batch of writ petitions, vide aforesaid judgment dated 06.06.2025.
10. In view of the above, the present petition qua petitioner nos. 1 to 4
and 6 to 8, being squarely covered by judgment dated 06.06.2025 (supra), is
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 13 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26
dismissed.
11. Insofar as petitioner no. 9 is concerned, Ms. Gupta submits that the
case of petitioner no. 9 is being considered by DDA in accordance with the
judgment dated 06.06.2025 (supra). The statement is taken on record and
respondent shall remain bound by the same.
12. It is not in dispute that as on date jhuggi of petitioner no.5 has not
been demolished and is still occupied. Accordingly, petitioner no. 5 is
granted four weeks’ time to vacate his jhuggi.
13. The petition, alongwith pending application, is disposed of.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
AUGUST 1, 2025/jg
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8380/2024 Page 14 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:07.08.2025
04:38:26