SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 2195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Janki – Appellant
Versus
Central Public Works Department & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2822 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13138 of 2019, W.P.(C) 2858 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13296 of 2019, W.P.(C) 3442 of 2019, CM APPL. 15800 of 2019 & CM APPL. 40576 of 2021, W.P.(C) 2860 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13299 of 2019, W.P.(C) 2873 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13359 of 2019, W.P.(C) 2883 of 2019 & CM APPL. 3386 of 2019 and W.P.(C) 3775 of 2019 & CM APPL. 17299 of 2019
Decided On : 07-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Naushad Alam, Advocate alongwith petitioner, for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 2822 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13138 of 2019, W.P.(C) 2858 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13296 of 2019 & W.P.(C) 3775/2019 & CM APPL. 17299/2019 & W.P.(C) 2860/2019 & CM APPL. 13299/2019.
Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Mr. Sushil Dixit, Advocates, for the DUSIB in W.P.(C) 2822 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13138 of 2019, W.P.(C) 2858 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13296 of 2019 & W.P.(C) 3442/2019, CM APPL. 15800/2019 & CM APPL. 40576/2021 & W.P.(C) 2860/2019 & CM APPL. 13299/2019 & W.P.(C) 2873/2019 & CM APPL. 13359/2019 & W.P.(C) 3775/2019 & CM APPL. 17299/2019.
Mr. Shaan Mohan and Mr. Gagan Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent-3.
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Standing Counsel, for UOI with Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Ms. Ankita Gautam and Mr. Sarthak Anand, Advocates, for the Respondent in W.P.(C) 2860/2019 & CM APPL. 13299/2019 & W.P.(C) 2873/2019 & CM APPL. 13359/2019 & W.P.(C) 3775/2019 & CM APPL. 17299/2019 & W.P.(C) 3775/2019 & CM APPL. 17299/2019.
Mr. R.K. Dhawan, Standing Counsel, for DDA with Ms. Vanshika Agarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent-5/DDA in W.P.(C) 2822 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13138 of 2019, W.P.(C) 2858 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13296 of 2019 & W.P.(C) 2860/2019 & CM APPL. 13299/2019 & W.P.(C) 3775/2019 & CM APPL. 17299/2019
Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, Advocate, for the GNCTD in W.P.(C) 2858 of 2019 & CM APPL. 13296 of 2019.
Ms. Charu Ambwani, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3442/2019, CM APPL. 15800/2019 & CM APPL. 40576/2021.
Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel, for the UOI/Respondent-1 and 4 in W.P.(C) 3442/2019, CM APPL. 15800/2019 & CM APPL. 40576/2021.
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel, for the DDA/Respondent-5 in W.P.(C) 3442/2019, CM APPL. 15800/2019 & CM APPL. 40576/2021.
Bhardwaj, Ms. Ankita Gautam and Mr. Sarthak Anand, Advocates, for the Respondent in W.P.(C) 2883/2019 & CM APPL. 13386/2019,
Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the Respondent-3/GNCTD in W.P.(C) 2883/2019 & CM APPL. 13386/2019.
Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Jasneet Jolly and Mr. Mohd. Shahid Khan, Advocates, for the Respondent-3 in W.P.(C) 3775/2019 & CM APPL. 17299/2019.

The judgment established that for entitlement to protection/rehabilitation under the existing policy framework for rehabilitation of residents of Jhuggi-Jhopri in Delhi, the settlement must qualify as a jhuggi jhopri basti under the DUSIB Act and the 2015 Policy, with notification by DUSIB and existence before the cut-off date.

Headnote:

Eviction - Rehabilitation of Jhuggi-Jhopri Dwellers - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 - DUSIB Act, 2010 - [Jhuggi-Jhopri Dwellers - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 - DUSIB Act, 2010]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, dwellers of jhuggis near Hanuman Mandir, Mohammadpur, New Delhi, sought writs to quash eviction notices issued under the Public Premises Act and for rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The respondents claimed the jhuggis were unauthorized and required eviction for public interest.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners failed to qualify as a jhuggi jhopri basti under the DUSIB Act and the 2015 Policy, as there was no notification by DUSIB and the settlement did not exist before the cut-off date. The court dismissed the petitions as devoid of merits.

Issues: Entitlement to protection/rehabilitation under the existing policy framework for rehabilitation of residents of Jhuggi-Jhopri in Delhi.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners failed to qualify as a jhuggi jhopri basti under the DUSIB Act and the 2015 Policy, as there was no notification by DUSIB and the settlement did not exist before the cut-off date.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions as devoid of merits.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant set of writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia for issuance of appropriate writs for quashing the respective notices issued under Rules 5-A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter "PP Act") and served upon the petitioners by Respondent No.1 as well as for issuance of appropriate directions to the Respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners and their family members in terms of Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (hereinafter "the Policy").

2. The details of the notices impugned herein are mentioned hereunder:

ParticularsDate of Notice
W.P. (C) 2822/201916.02.2019
W.P. (C) 2858/201912.02.2019
W.P. (C) 3442/201916.02.2019
W.P. (C) 2860/201919.02.2019
W.P. (C) 2873/201916.02.2019
W.P. (C) 2883/201919.02.2019
W.P. (C) 3775/201916.02.2019

3. The petitioners are dwellers of various shelters/jhuggis situated near Hanuman Mandir, Mohammadpur, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. Vide the aforesaid Notices the petitioners have been asked by Respondent No.1 to vacate their respective jhuggis, situated near the said area.

4. Respondent No. 1 is the Central Pubic Welfare Department (hereinafter "CPWD"), Respondent No. 2 is the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (hereinafter "DUSIB"), Respondent No. 3 is the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Respondent No. 4 is the Ministry of Urban Development.

5. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are poor migrants and daily wagers who have been residing at the aforesaid address for years and with the passage of time constructed temporary shelters for residing. It is also submitted that several ID/Address proofs (including Ration card, Voter ID, etc.), electricity and gas connections, bank accounts, and educational qualification certificates have been issued to the petitioners on the address at which they are staying currently and are being sought to be evicted from.

6. It is alleged that on several occasions, the Respondent No. 1 threatened the petitioners of demolition of their shelters and evicting them. In response thereto, a letter was written to the Chief Minister on 19.06.2017. Subsequently, in July, 2017, a Suit was filed by the petitioners bearing No. CS No.793/2017 titled `Shanti Thapa and Ors. vs. Central Public Welfare Department and Ors.' before Additional Senior Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, seeking mandatory and permanent injunction directing the Respondent No. 1 to 3 not to demolish and evict them from their jhuggis and comply with the 2015 Rehabilitation Policy.

7. It is submitted that on 04.02.2019, Respondent No. 1 made the statement before the Senior Civil Judge that they shall not dispossess the petitioners/jhuggi dwellers without adopting the due processes of law. In view of the same, the said suit was disposed off as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedies under the relevant previsions of law. Thereafter, eviction/demolition notice dated 16.02.2019 was issued.

8. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned action of the respondent no. 1 is illegal, arbitrary, illogical and capricious and smacks of complete non-application of mind leading to gross violation of right of shelter guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also against the 2015 Policy approved by the Respondent No.2 vide its resolution No. 16/3 dated 11.04.2016 which provides that JJ Basti which has came up before 01.01.2006 would not be removed without providing alternative housing facilities, on the same land or in the vicinity within a radius of 5 Kms and in exceptional circumstances beyond 5 Kms with prior approval of DUSIB, with amenities in the nature and form of water, electricity supply and sanitation facilities.

9. Per Contra, learned counsels for the Respondent No.1/submitted that the area at wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top