Delhi High Court says encroachers can't claim right to occupy public land during rehab
New Delhi:
Delhi High Court
recently ruled that encroachers cannot claim the right to occupy public land while their rehabilitation claims are being processed, as this would hinder public projects.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma emphasised that eligibility for rehabilitation is separate from eviction proceedings. "There is no gainsaying that the petitioners have no vested right to seek rehabilitation as it is not an absolute constitutional entitlement available to encroachers such as themselves. The right to rehabilitation arises solely from the prevailing policy, which binds the petitioners.
The determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land," the bench said in its 60-page judgment on May 26.
The court dismissed petitions seeking to halt demolition and eviction in the Bhoomiheen Camp jhuggi clusters in Govindpuri, noting that Delhi Development Authority's actions complied with the 2015 policy guidelines. The petitioners also sought a direction to DUSIB to conduct a comprehensive survey of the affected residents and to rehabilitate them in accordance with the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.
The bench observed that the measures implemented by DDA in the case were in accordance with the guidelines in the policy. The court noted that DDA's position that the Oct 2019 survey was conducted in the presence of the jhuggi occupants, was video-recorded, and utilised a mobile application to ensure accuracy, cannot be challenged in the proceedings in question.
The bench said that in adherence to the rehabilitation and relocation process, DDA carried out a survey of the camp and that a notice was prominently displayed at multiple locations within the JJ cluster, informing people about the start of the survey.
"Notably, the jhuggis do not have structured numbering assigned by civic authorities, but rather bear arbitrary, self-assigned numbers by occupants, resulting in a disorganised layout.
This circumstance makes locating any specific jhuggi by number inherently challenging. This court finds merit in the plea of DDA that the petitioners' allegation of an improper survey process lacks any basis and goes beyond the pleadings in the instant writ petitions," the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Bouncers at school to block entry of students reprehensible: HC pulls up DPS Dwarka amid fee hike row
A reprehensible practice like deploying bouncers to block entry of students has no place in an institute of learning, the Delhi High Court said on Thursday as it pulled up DPS Dwarka for disregarding the dignity of a child, and expressed 'dismay' amid a row over the fee hike issue. 'Public shaming or intimidation of a student on account of financial default, especially through force or coercive action, not only constitutes mental harassment but also undermines the psychological well-being and self-worth of a child,' the High Court underlined. Justice Sachin Datta recorded the observations in a verdict while deciding an application moved by parents of 32 students who were expelled by the school over non-payment of pending dues. Noting that DPS Dwarka had subsequently withdrawn the expulsion order and had reinstated the students, making the application moot, the court observed, 'This court is also constrained to express its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner school in engaging bouncers to physically block entry of certain students into the school premises.' 'Such a reprehensible practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only disregard to the dignity of a child but also a fundamental misunderstanding of a school's role in society. The use of bouncers fosters a climate of fear, humiliation and exclusion that is incompatible with the fundamental ethos of a school,' the court underlined. The court also reiterated that a school 'cannot be equated with a purely commercial establishment' as a school is 'rooted not in profit maximisation but in public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children.' 'The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise…The school, no doubt, is entitled to charge appropriate fees, especially given the financial outlay required to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff and provide a conducive learning environment. However, the school is different from a normal commercial establishment, since it carries with it fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards its students,' the court recorded. The bench further underlined that in case the school decides to take any action in future under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which deals with striking off of students from the school's roll, it will issue a prior communication – specifically putting the students concerned or their parents or guardians to notice — as to the date on which the students are proposed to be struck off the rolls. The school is bound to give a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such action, the court said. Disposing of the application, the High Court emphasised that the parents concerned 'are obliged to adhere and comply with the orders passed by this Court as regards payment of requisite fees to the school.' Earlier on May 16, the High Court, observing that there is no embargo on schools hiking fees, had directed DPS Dwarka to allow the 102 students, whose parents had moved the court against the fee hike, to continue their studies, provided they deposit 50% of the hiked school fee for the 2024-25 academic year.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC to DPS, Dwarka: Using bouncers to block students' entry over fees is ‘mental harassment'
New Delhi: Expressing strong disapproval of Delhi Public School, Dwarka's conduct in allegedly deploying bouncers to block students' entry over a fee dispute, Delhi High Court on Thursday termed the act of publicly shaming students for non-payment of fees as "mental harassment". A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta remarked, "This court is constrained to express its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner school in engaging "bouncers" to physically block the entry of certain students into the school premises. Such a reprehensible practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only a disregard for the dignity of a child but also a fundamental misunderstanding of a school's role in society. " The court was hearing a petition filed by parents of students who had been expelled last month for non-payment of fees. It was informed that the school later withdrew its expulsion orders following a directive from a coordinate bench, reinstating the affected students. The court emphasised that any form of public shaming or intimidation over financial issues, especially using force or coercive means, constitutes mental harassment and undermines a child's psychological well-being. "The use of bouncers fosters a climate of fear, humiliation, and exclusion, which is incompatible with the ethos of education," the bench stated. While noting that the school is entitled to charge reasonable for its operations—to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff, and provide a conducive learning environment—the court underlined that an educational institution cannot be equated with a commercial enterprise. "The driving force of a school—especially one managed by a reputed society—must be public welfare, nation-building, and holistic child development, not profit maximisation. The primary objective of a school is to impart education and inculcate values, not to operate as a business enterprise," the court observed. As the school had reinstated the students, the court said the petition had become largely moot. However, it directed that any future action under Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, must be preceded by proper notice and an opportunity for the affected students or their guardians to respond.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Fee row: Delhi HC dismayed over DPS Dwarka using bouncers to block students
The Delhi High Court on Thursday called out Delhi Public School, Dwarka, for using "bouncers" to block the entry of students in its premises over a fee dispute. Noting such a practice had no place in an institution of learning, Justice Sachin Datta said public shaming and intimidation of a student due to financial default did not only constitute mental harassment but also undermined the psychological well being and self-worth of a child. The court said though the school was entitled to charge appropriate fees, especially given the financial outlay required to sustain infrastructure, remunerate staff and provide a conducive learning environment, it is a place different from a normal commercial establishment and carried fiduciary and moral responsibilities towards students. "This court is also constrained to express its dismay at the alleged conduct of the petitioner school in engaging 'bouncers' to physically block entry of certain students into the school premises. Such a reprehensible practice has no place in an institute of learning. It reflects not only disregard to the dignity of a child but also fundamental misunderstanding of a school's role in the society," its order read. The order came on a plea against the removal of over 30 students by the school over the issue of fee. At the time of pronouncing the order, the court was informed by the school's counsel that the order debarring 31 students was withdrawn and were reinstated. The court said the controversy raised in the parents' application was "moot" point. "However, it is clarified that if the school seeks to take any action in future by taking recourse to Rule 35 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, then the school will (i) issue a prior communication specifically putting the concerned students and/ or their parents/ guardians to notice as to the date on which the students are proposed to be struck off the rolls; (ii) give a reasonable opportunity to showcause against such action," it said. The court said the parents concerned were obliged to adhere to and comply with the orders passed by the coordinate bench of the high court regarding payment of requisite fees to the school. The May 16 order of the coordinate bench which directed parents to deposit 50 per cent of the hiked fees for academic year 2025-26 following which their wards will be allowed to continue their studies in the classes, gave clear and cogent directions on the amount of the fees payable, it added. The court had previously clarified that the rebate of 50 per cent was on the hiked component of the fee and the base fee should be paid in full. Justice Datta on Thursday observed the use of bouncers fostered a "climate of fear, humiliation and exclusion" which was incompatible with the fundamental ethos of a school. The driving force and character of a school, particularly a school such as the petitioner (DPS, Dwarka), run by a pre-eminent society, was rooted not in profit maximisation but in public welfare, nation building and the holistic development of children, the judge said. The court underlined education and inculcation of values to be a school's primary objective and not operating as a business enterprise. The school had previously refuted allegations of profiteering and argued it was running on deficit and due notices were sent to the parents. The school's counsel said the school had a deficit of ₹31 crore accumulated over the last 10 years. The students were expelled on May 9 following which the parents filed an application in a pending petition of the school. The school moved the high court in July 2024, challenging a July 18, 2024 notice of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, directing the deputy commissioner of police to register an FIR under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act against the school.
