$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3892/2024, CM APPL. 16023/2024, CM APPL. 49292/2024 CHINTA DEVI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Renu, Ms. Arthana Brahma, Mr.

Piyush Singh, Mr. Swagata, Advs.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan (SPC), Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms.Yashita Jain, Advs.

for UOI Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Richa Dhawan, Ms. Yashita Jain, Advs. for DUSIB Ms Avni Singh Panel Counsel for GNCTD Ms. Kritika Gupta for DDA (appearance not given)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 18.02.2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:

“I. Pass an order declaring the Non-Inclusion of the names of the petitioners without any show cause in the final draw of lots, dated 29.02.2024 drawn by DDA to be illegal and arbitrary which is marked as ANNEXURE P-5 II. Pass an order for quashing & setting aside the Impugned draw of lots bearing No. ISRKBRML-29-02-2024 (100003 SRKBRML-1) dated 29.02.2024 at Annexure P-5 to the extent that it does not include the names of the petitioners.

III. Pass an order directing the respondent No.1 to place on record its Policy based on which the rehabilitation of the Jhuggi Dwellers of Kali Bari is being sought to be done by DDA.

IV. Declare the removal of the names of the petitioners from the voter list of 2024 without any show cause and in violation of Rule 21 of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 to be illegal and arbitrary.

V. Pass an order directing the respondent ECI/ CEO to place on record the precaution action taken by it before removal of the names of the petitioners from the Voter List.

VI. Pass an order directing respondent ECI/CEO to take immediate steps for inclusion of the names of the petitioners in voter list & further take steps to allow them to vote in general elections of 2024.

VII. Pass an order directing the respondent to rehabilitate the petitioners and allot them flats as sought to be allotted to other eligible slum Dwellers.

VIII. Pass an order directing DUSIB to return the money charged from the petitioners in lieu of rehabilitation...”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were residents T- HUTS, Kali Bari Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi Central Delhi 110001. Additionally, Petitioner No. 3 is disabled person. The petitioners were deemed qualified for rehabilitation assistance according to the scheme established by the Delhi Government. Additionally, the petitioner No. 3 was given a provisional eligibility letter by DUSIB i.e. the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 also issued no objection certificate to the petitioner No. 1 for obtaining electricity connection in their name.

3. On 15.12.2015, the respondent No. 3 announced a new policy ‘Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (“2015 policy”) for rehabilitation and relocation of JJ Clusters which shifted the cut off date to

01.01.2015.

4. Since the petitioners were not rehabilitated in terms of the said policy, the present petition has been filed.

5. Ms. Renu, learned counsel, states that in view of the documents in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners were occupier of jhuggis in JJ Cluster and were entitled to rehabilitation. The claims of the petitioners are further fortified by the no objection certificates issued by respondent No. 2.

6. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, states at the outset that it is the respondent No. 1 which is the land owning agency. Pursuant to the survey conducted, 104 jhuggis developers were found eligible and have been rehabilitated. She further states that the cluster has already been removed.

7. She draws my attention to the policy of respondent No. 2 i.e. the 2015 policy which has been adopted by the respondent No.1. The eligibility criteria as per the said policy reads as under:

“1. The eligibility criteria for allotment of alternative dwelling units to rehabilitate and relocate JJ dwellers wou