IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Keshaw Sanyasi Gawo Shewasharam – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT & Anr. – Respondents
LPA 117 of 2023 &CM APPLNs. 7779-7781 of 2023
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Eviction Notice - Land Dispute - Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010, Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Relocation Policy, 2015 - The court discussed the provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 and the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Relocation Policy, 2015. It emphasized the eligibility criteria for rehabilitation or relocation under the Policy and the requirement for jhuggi jhopri basti clusters to have existed before specific dates. The court highlighted the need for evidence to substantiate claims and the limitations of writ jurisdiction in determining factual questions.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved an eviction notice issued by the Public Welfare Department for the land occupied by a Trust maintaining a Shiv Temple and Gaushala, along with jhuggis dwellers. The Trust sought quashing of the notice and directions prohibiting demolition/evacuation proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the premises did not come within the notified jhuggi cluster under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. It held that the occupants were not entitled to protection from demolition and directed the Respondents to allot alternate accommodation for the cow shelter exempt from the maximum stay period of three months.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility for protection under the Policy, the existence of the jhuggi cluster, and the legality of the eviction notice for the Trust's premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for jhuggi jhopri basti clusters to have existed before specific dates to be eligible for rehabilitation or relocation under the Policy. It highlighted the limitations of writ jurisdiction in determining factual questions and the requirement for evidence to substantiate claims.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court reiterated the necessity of providing facilities to individuals being relocated.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant Appeal has been filed against Order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1726/2023.The dispute in the instant case relates to an eviction notice issued by the Respondent No. 2, i.e., Public Welfare Department, for the land occupied by the Appellant herein, i.e., Keshaw Sanyasi Gawo Shewasharam.
2. The Appellant herein is a Trust established for the purpose of maintaining a Shiv Temple and Gaushala and is located at Shiv Hanuman Mandir, Bhairo Road, New Delhi (`said premises'). It is stated that the Petitioner looks after ailing, old and abandoned cows. Apart from the Shiv Temple, and said cow shelter, the said premises are also home to certain jhuggis dwellers.
3. It is stated that on 28.01.2023, the Respondent No.2/Department pasted Eviction Notices on all such premises located at Bhairo Road, New Delhi directing the occupants to vacate the premises within 15 days. The Eviction Notice states that their failure to do so would result in their removal. The notice also states that they would be relocated at the Shelter Home at Dwarka, Geeta Colony where they could reside for a period of 3 months.
4. As the Gaushala of the Appellant is also located at the said premises, the Appellant was aggrieved by the Eviction Notice and filed the W.P.(C) No.1726/2023 seeking quashing of the Impugned Notice and the issuance of appropriate directions prohibiting the Respondents from carrying out demolition/evacuation proceedings in the said premises.
5. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.1726/2023, vide Order dated 10.02.2023, found that the premises in question do not come within the jhuggi cluster which has been notified as per the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the occupants of the premises were not entitled to protection from demolition. It was also found that since the Impugned Notice provides for an alternate accommodation, no orders were needed to be passed. Further, the Ld. Single Judge directed the Respondents to allot an alternate accommodation for the cow shelter within a week, and further that such alternate cow shelter would be exempt from the maximum stay period of three months.
6. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 10.02.2023, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.
7. In sum and substance, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has argued that cow shelter, and temple have been present in the said premises for more than 15 years and that the Impugned Notice is illegal and arbitrary. It is the contention of the Appellant that the area in question where the Gaushala is situated is near a notified cluster area and, therefore, the Appellant is also entitled to the protection of the Policy.
8. Per Contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has defended the Impugned Order by bringing to the attention of this Court that the place where the premises exist do not come within any notified cluster as notified under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Relocation Policy, 2015. Hence, the demolition cannot be stayed for the said premises.
9. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for the Respondents, and perused the material on record.
10. Pursuant to the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi, 168 (2010) DLT 218, a policy titled the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Relocation Policy, 2015 (`said Policy'). Prior to the said Policy, the Government had formulated the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (`said Act') for the rehabilitation of Jhuggi dwellers. Chapter II of the Act establishes the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), while Chapter III lays down its duties which include inter alia the preparation of a scheme for resettlement, improvement and redevelopment of the jhuggi dwellers. DUSIB was designated as the nodal agency for the implementation of the said Policy.
11. A perusal of the DU
Eligibility for rehabilitation or relocation under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 is contingent upon the existence of jhuggi jhopri basti clusters before specific da....
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 a....
The right to shelter and the need for a comprehensive protocol to ensure rehabilitation of persons living in JJ clusters.
The main legal point established is that unless a jhuggi is part of the recognized cluster of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, no rehabilitation can be directed.
Failure to substantiate entitlement to rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 results in denial of the benefit. However, authorities must provide temporar....
The right to shelter must be protected, and authorities must ensure basic amenities for relocated individuals and animals.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner and other residents of the jhuggis were not entitled to rehabilitation as per the DUSIB policy, 2015, and the DUSIB Act, 2010. ....
The judgment established that under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, residents must prove that their clusters were notified by DUSIB and that the jhuggis were constru....
Eligibility for rehabilitation under the 2015 Policy is contingent upon the notification of jhuggi jhopri basti by DUSIB and adherence to the cut-off dates for entitlement to rehabilitation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.