Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Urmila & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 9625/2022 and CM Appls. 28721/2022 (Stay), 30000/2022 (delay), 30001/2022 (impleadment), 30108/2022 (directions) & 30130/2022 (directions) & W.P.(C) 9628/2022 and CM Appls. 28730/2022 (interim relief), 30011/2022 (delay), 30471/2022 (impleadment) and 30472/2022 (stay)
Decided On : 04-08-2022
Mr. Trideep Pais, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Natasha Maheshwari & Mr. Sudakshina Prasad, Advocates, for the Petitioners; Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Ms. Kritika Gupta, Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal & Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Advocates for. Mr. Anil Gera, Advocate, for the DDA; Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 3 to 4; Mr. Shiyas K.R., Mr. Jepi Y. Chisho & Mr. Kaoliangpou Kamei, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 9628/2022 and CM Appls. 28730/2022 (interim relief), 30011/2022 (delay), 30471/2022 (impleadment) and 30472/2022 (stay); Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Ms. Kritika Gupta, Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal & Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Advs., for the DDA in W.P.(C) 9628/2022 and CM Appls. 28730/2022 (interim relief), 30011/2022 (delay), 30471/2022 (impleadment) and 30472/2022 (stay); Mr. Rishi Kant Singh, Adv, for the Respondents No. 2/DUSIB; Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, with Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 GNCTD
Settlements not meeting the criteria for 'jhuggi jhopri basti' and not covered by DUSIB notification are not entitled to the benefits of the 2015 Policy. The court also emphasized the threat to life posed by settlements located on the Yamuna floodplains and the public projects being thwarted by the stay order.
Headnote:
DEMOLITION - JHUGGI BASTI - DUSIB Act, 2010, 2015 Policy - The court discussed the definition of 'jhuggi jhopri basti' under the DUSIB Act, 2010 and the eligibility for rehabilitation under the 2015 Policy. The court found that the settlements did not qualify as 'jhuggi jhopri basti' and were not covered by any notification issued by DUSIB, thus not entitled to the benefits of the 2015 Policy. The court also highlighted the threat to life posed by the settlements located on the Yamuna floodplains and the public projects being thwarted by the stay order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought protection against arbitrary demolition or eviction from Gyaspur Basti, claiming to be residents for over 27 years. They requested restraint from eviction or demolition and sought temporary residence for displaced petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlements did not qualify as 'jhuggi jhopri basti' and were not covered by any notification issued by DUSIB, thus not entitled to the benefits of the 2015 Policy. The court also highlighted the threat to life posed by the settlements located on the Yamuna floodplains and the public projects being thwarted by the stay order.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the settlements qualified as 'jhuggi jhopri basti' and were eligible for rehabilitation under the 2015 Policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the settlements did not meet the criteria for 'jhuggi jhopri basti' and were not covered by any notification issued by DUSIB, thus not entitled to the benefits of the 2015 Policy. The court also emphasized the threat to life posed by the settlements located on the Yamuna floodplains and the public projects being thwarted by the stay order.
Final Decision: The court vacated the interim order and allowed the demolition, but directed the DDA to provide all possible assistance for the rehabilitation of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Sachin Datta, J. -
CM Appl. 29999/2022 (vacation of stay) in W.P.(C) 9625/2022 CM Appl. 30013/2022 (vacation of stay) in W.P. (C) 9628/2022
1. These applications have been filed by respondent No. 1/Delhi Development Authority ('DDA'), seeking vacation of the order dated 28.06.2022 in the instant petitions, whereby status quo was directed to be maintained. The said order dated 28.06.2022, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 9625/2022, reads as under:-
'CM NO. 28721/2022
1. A Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for appropriate directions to protect the petitioners against the arbitrary and illegal demolition or eviction from Gyaspur Basti, Sarai Kale Khan, Nizamuddin East, South East Delhi, New Delhi.
2. It is submitted in the petition that the petitioners are the residents of two Gyaspur Basti clusters which are located on either side of the road in Sarai Kale Khan, Nizamuddin East, South East Delhi, New Delhi. The two clusters house 100 families and a total of over 459 residents are residing there. Settlement A on one side of the road is 100 meters away from Settlement B adjacent to the Kalindi Gaushala. It is asserted that on 18thJune, 2022 about 15-16 persons professing to be the representative of Respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority visited Gyaspur Basti cluster and orally informed the residents that they would be demolishing the Basti on 23rd June, 2022. Thereafter on 23rd June, 2022 15-20 representative of Respondent No. 1 again visited Gyaspur Basti cluster equipped with 8-9 bulldozers and threatened to demolish the jhuggis immediately and went to demolish the farms adjacent to the jhuggis. On the representations and requests of the residents, respondent No. 1 agreed to wait till 27th June, 2022 to conduct the demolition drive. The DDA's proposed action at the time when COVID-19 cases are rising on exponential basis and there is impeding monsoon reason in Delhi which could disproportionately affect and render the residents of this cluster homeless. No Notice of the demolition was ever served upon the petitioners.
3. It is further submitted that the Basti was established about forty years ago and petitioners have documents to demonstrate their residence here at least since 1995 i.e. for more than 27 years. Most of the residents migrated to Delhi from interiors of Uttar Pradesh and 95% of the residents belong to Scheduled Caste (primarily Dhobi caste) or other backward class. They are daily wagers living below the poverty line and are primarily engaged in unskilled or semi-skilled informal labour and are otherwise vulnerable to COVID-19 and are now facing the prospect of illegal eviction and demolition of their houses.
4. A prayer is, therefore, made that the respondents particularly respondent No. 1 be restrained from carrying out any eviction or demolition or from taking any coercive measures for harassing the petitioners who are the residents of Gyaspur Basti cluster marked as A & B on the Site Plan Ex.P1. It is further requested that respondent No. 4 (Delhi Police) may be restrained from assisting Respondent No. 1 to 3 in carrying out the demolition and the evictions. Further, Respondent No. 3 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) be directed to conduct the survey of the jhuggis in Gyaspur Basti clusters in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Sudama Singh &Ors v. Government of Delhi &Ors, (2010) 168 DLT (DB) and Ajay Maken&Ors v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7618. Further, directions are sought to be given that respondents be directed to comply with the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 and Draft Protocol and provide for in situ upgradation/rehabilitation to the Petitioners.
5. Issue Notice.
6. Notice is accepted by the learned counsels for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there are about 100 families residing in the two clusters existing in Sarai Kale Khan at least
