‘Encroachers can't claim right to occupy public land pending their rehabilitation': Delhi HC refuses relief to over 350 slum dwellers

Indian Express

5 hours ago

'Encroachers cannot claim the right to continue occupying public land, pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy, as this would unduly impede public projects,' the Delhi High Court held last Friday (June 6) while deciding pleas by as many as 417 residents of Bhoomiheen Camp in Kalkaji.
The residents were seeking the HC's protection from demolition of their settlements as well as their rehabilitation.
Reasoning that the right to seek rehabilitation, as it is, is not an absolute constitutional entitlement 'available to encroachers such as themselves', Justice Dharmesh Sharma added that 'determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land.' Of the over 400-odd petitioners, the HC granted some relief to around 30 of them.
On June 2, minutes before petitions to stay demolition of homes at the slum in Southeast Delhi's Govindpuri were heard by a HC vacation bench, the civic authorities had already started razing down the hutments.
The petitioners had challenged orders by Justice Sharma, on May 26 and May 30, where he had rejected the dwellers' pleas for protection from demolition and their rehabilitation.
The petitioners had moved the court first in 2023, claiming that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), in 'an arbitrary and illegal manner, proposed to demolish their jhuggi-jhopdis'.
The proposal, they contended, was contrary to the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and surveys for their rehabilitation were conducted 'by an obscure, outsourced agency appointed by DDA'. It was also pointed out that due processes were not followed.
Justice Sharma, while closing a bunch of petitions moved by the 417 dwellers, ruled, '… it is evident that the interim injunctions obtained by the petitioners have not only hindered the timely execution of the rehabilitation project but have also resulted in a significant escalation of public expenditure, thereby causing financial strain on the State. Even assuming, arguendo, that the petitioners may have plausible grounds to assert a legal right to rehabilitation, a favourable adjudication would at best extend the scope of eligible beneficiaries under the prevailing rehabilitation policy. However, such a contention cannot translate into a right to indefinitely occupy public land or retain possession of their respective jhuggi jhopri dwellings, especially when the removal is in furtherance of a larger public interest and in accordance with due process.'
What the court ruled
-Among the 417 petitioners, for 165 who were occupying upper floors of the jhuggis, and those who approached the HC without exhausting the remedy of the appellate authority after their claim for rehabilitation was rejected by the Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC), the court dismissed their petitions.
Such petitioners can, however, approach the appellate authority within six weeks, the court directed. However, the court clarified, such remedies 'shall not stand in the way of the DDA proceeding with the demolition action.'
-The court also refused to grant any relief to a bunch of petitioners whose rehabilitation claims were rejected by the EDC as well as the Appellate Authority on the ground that they had failed to produce a valid and separate ration card in their individual names.
-Justice Sharma, however, allowed relief for 26 petitioner-dwellers, whose rehabilitation claims were allowed by the appellate authority but were subsequently rejected by DDA. The court directed the competent authority 'to review, reconsider or recall their impugned decisions rejecting the claims of the present set of petitioners within six weeks, as per the 2015 policy, and to proceed with their relocation and rehabilitation in accordance with law.'
-It dismissed pleas by 50 dwellers, where the appellate authority had rejected the claims on the ground that their names do not figure in the voter lists for the years 2012-2015, before the eligibility cut-off date, or on the ground that the voter card furnished by them was found to be invalid.
-The court also dismissed pleas by six dwellers who were seeking two allotments against one jhuggi despite one allotment already made against the claimed structure.
-In the case of one petitioner where the appellate authority allowed the claim but was not allotted an alternative dwelling unit, the HC directed DDA 'to proceed with the allotment of an alternative dwelling to the petitioner within six weeks, as per the 2015 Policy.'