The eligibility of slum dwellers for rehabilitation under the 2015 Policy requires compliance with both voter list and document possession criteria.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by nine petitioners seeking following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ, order, or direction in nature of mandamus staying the actions of the Respondents of demolishing the jhuggis of the Petitioners and forcefully evicting them from their dwelling units;

b) Issue a writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 24.08.2023, 15.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 18.09.2023, 23.02.2023 30.08.2023, 30.08.2023, 07.08.2023 of Appellant Authority and 04.07.2023 of Competent Authority of DDA.

c) Issue a writ, order, or direction to set aside the undated demolition notice issued by the Respondent DDA on 02.07.2023. 

d) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to provide rehabilitation to the petitioner.”

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present petition, respondent/DDA had undertaken demolition drive and has demolished the jhuggis of all other petitioners except jhuggi of petitioner no.5.

3. The grievance ventilated by the petitioners with regard to the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC) as well as the impugned orders dated 24.08.2023 in Appeal No.338/2023; 15.09.2023 in Appeal No.473/2022; 25.09.2023 in Appeal No.431/2023; 18.09.2023 in Appeal No.143/2022; 23.02.2023 in Appeal No.643/2023; 30.08.2023 in Appeal No.195/2022; 30.08.2023 in Appeal No.10/2022; 07.08.2023 in Appeal No.318/2023 passed by the Appellate Authority and order dated 04.07.2023 passed by competent authority of DDA.

4. The EDC, the Competent Authority of DDA, as well as, the Appellate Authority has rejected the claim of petitioners for rehabilitation on the ground that names of petitioners do not appear in the voter lists for the year 2012 to 2015. On a pointed query posed by the Court as to whether names of petitioners find mention in the voter lists for the year 2012-2015, Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, fairly concedes that the names of petitioners are not there in said voter lists.

5. He, however, contends that apart from voter lists, the respondents ought to have appreciated that petitioners possess other documents from the list of 12 documents mentioned in Clause 2 of Part-B of the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 [in short ‘2015 Policy’]. He places reliance on the decision dated 01.08.2017 of Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 5378/2017, titled as Udal and Others vs. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Others, wherein the Division Bench considered the inter-play of the provisions of Clause 1 (iii) of Part-B of the Policy and the provisions contained in Clause 2, thereby observing that Clause 1 (iii) and Clause 2 of Part-B of the Policy have to be read conjointly and not dis-jointly. It was thus, held that the petitioners in the said matter were entitled to the benefit of the Policy for the reason that they did possess any one of the 12 documents listed in Clause 2 of Part-B of the 2015 Policy.

6. A perusal of para 3 of the writ petition shows that a specific averment has also been made therein that the present petition can be tagged along with writ petition being W.P.(C) 8546/2023, which is pending before this Court. It is further stated in para 4 that in case the present petition is not tagged with the aforesaid pending petition, it will cause irreparable loss to petitioners. The said relevant paras from writ petition are reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:

“3. It is further submitted that all these appeals are preferred against the rejection of their allotment due to the absence of a ration card for the upper floor. These petitioners can be tagged along with the pending W.P.(C) 8546/2023, which is being finally argued before the court on the dispute of the ration card.

4