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

2023 Supreme(Del) 753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Bela Estate Mazdoor Basti Samiti – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5214 of 2018 & CM Appls. 2326 of 2023 & 12969 of 2023
Decided On : 27-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, Mr. Umesh Kumar, Ms. Mughdha, Mr. Nayab Gankar and Ms. Sumayya Khatoon, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Ms. Aakriti Garg, Advocates, for DUSIB/R-1 with Mr. Prakashdeep, LA.
Dr. Sanjay Jain, ASG of India with Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel, DDA, Ms. Kanak Grover and Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Advocates, for R-2/DDA.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Mr. Sanyam Suri and Ms. Arshya Singh, Advocates, for R-3 & 4.
Ms. Anju Gupta and Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocates, for R-5.

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 constructed before 01.01.2015 to be entitled to rehabilitation.

Headnote:

eviction - challenge to eviction notices issued by DDA to residents of Bela Estate, New Delhi - Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 - [DUSIB Policy, 2015, Section 2(g), Section 2(a)(i), Section 2(a)(ii), Clause 1 of DUSIB Policy, 2015 (Part B)]

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner challenged eviction notices issued by DDA to residents of Bela Estate, New Delhi, seeking relief under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The Petitioner claimed that the slum clusters at Bela Estate had been in existence for over 70 years and consisted of more than 700 households. DDA had conducted a survey during 2004-2006 and had allotted 6086 plots for alternate accommodation to eligible residents.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Petitioners were not entitled to rehabilitation as per DUSIB Policy, 2015, as they failed to prove that the JJ clusters in Bela Estate were notified by DUSIB or that the jhuggis in these clusters were constructed before 01.01.2015. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioners were entitled to rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Petitioners were not entitled to rehabilitation as they failed to prove that the JJ clusters in Bela Estate were notified by DUSIB or that the jhuggis in these clusters were constructed before 01.01.2015.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Petitioners were not entitled to rehabilitation as per DUSIB Policy, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. By way of present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the eviction notices issued by Respondent No. 2/DDA to the residents of Bela Estate, New Delhi. The Petitioner is also seeking, inter alia, a stay of eviction of residents from Bela Estate. It has been further sought that if they are evicted then they may be provided an alternative accommodation for rehabilitation by Respondent No. 1/DUSIB.

BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION

2. The Petitioner is claiming itself to be an association of residents of Bela Estate. It is the claim of the Petitioner that Bela Estate, New Delhi is a large JJ cluster on the western bank of river Yamuna and comprises of 5 sub-areas namely China Colony, Bela Gaon, Malla Gaon, Moolchand Basti and Kanchan Puri. It is further the claim of the Petitioner that these slum clusters at Bela Estate have been in existence since past more than 70 years and consists of more than 700 households. It has been alleged that most of the residents have been residing in the subject area prior to 01.01.2015 which is one of the requirements of the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 ('DUSIB policy, 2015').

3. It is stated by the Petitioner that a survey of residents of Bela Estate was conducted by DDA during the period 2004-2006 and they were issued provisional land allotment proposal and demand letters by DDA. It is the case of the Petitioners that they deposited the amount as demanded by DDA and submitted the necessary documents, however, no alternative land was allotted to them by DDA.

4. In pursuance of the Order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned National Green Tribunal ('NGT') in OA No. 06/ 2012, titled as 'Manoj Mishra Vs UOI & Ors.', Respondent No. 2/DDA issued eviction notices to the residents of Bela Estate directing them to remove illegal encroachment and to vacate Respondent No. 2/DDA's land.

5. Under these circumstances, being aggrieved by the eviction notice issued by DDA, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

    "a. direct respondent no. l DUSIB to conduct a survey of the affected residents and rehabilitate them in accordance with the Delhi JJ slum Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015;

    b. stay the eviction of residents and their belongings at Bela Estate, New Delhi-110002

    c. direct the R3, Police, to provide protection against any demolition to the residents until express order from the Court.

    d. direct R2, DDA to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as the cost of mental agony and undertaking the legal proceedings by way of this petition.

    e. any other order deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case."

6. This Court issued notice to the Respondents on 14.05.2018 and directed to maintain status quo as to the possession of the said property in question. Later this Court vide order dated 16.12.2020 modified the interim order dated 14.05.2018 to the extent that "the respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall carry out a survey of the area in a manner as was directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA 276/2020, titled Shakil Ahmed & anr Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors, before conducting any demolition activity in the area in question".

7. In the present matter, DDA filed 4 Affidavits and 3 early hearing Applications. In addition, CM No. 28509/2018 was also filed by the DDA for vacating the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2018. The consistent stand of the DDA, which is emerging from these Affidavits are as follows:

(i) Yamuna River Bed on both sides of River Yamuna falls in 4 villages which are Bela, Inderpat, Chiragah Janubi and Chiragah Shumali and all the aforesaid villages were placed at the disposal of Delhi Improvement Trust (DIT or erstwhile DDA) vide Nazul Agreement dated 31-03-1937.

(ii) The subject land is a part of 'O' Zone" of the MPD-2021

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