Back
Footpaths are for walking, not : refuses relief to Lohar Basti
The has firmly reiterated that footpaths are meant exclusively for pedestrians and cannot be encroached upon, refusing to grant any to a group of basti residents who had challenged a for jhuggies constructed on a footpath along G.T. Karnal Road.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, hearing the petition filed by , declined to entertain the plea after noting that photographs and the impugned notice clearly showed the structures were built on the footpath, which forms part of the and storm-water drain maintained by the .
The Challenge and the Court’s Swift Response
The petitioner had sought a quashing the PWD notice dated , and a directing the respondents—including the and the —to conduct a survey of the basti residents to determine their eligibility for or before any removal. The group relied on earlier and High Court rulings in and that laid down principles for survey and of slum dwellers.
However, the court was not persuaded. After perusing the photographs and the notice—which described illegal occupation of government land and commercial activities such as trading in iron utensils—Justice Singh observed that such could not be permitted.
“Footpaths Cannot Be Encroached Upon”
The court’s order underscored the fundamental purpose of footpaths: “Footpaths are made for walking and strictly for the pedestrians to avoid traffic on the roads. Footpaths cannot be encroached upon. For the said reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the petition.”
The judge noted that the combined reading of the photographs and the notice made the evident, and declined to grant any of the substantive reliefs sought by the petitioner.
A Glimmer of Relief: to be Decided
While refusing to halt the demolition or order a survey, the court took note of the petitioner’s dated , submitted to the PWD. The respondent’s counsel stated that the would be considered. Consequently, Justice Singh directed the PWD to decide the “expeditiously and not later than 4 weeks from today.”
The petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief other than a decision on its .
Implications
The ruling reinforces the principle that public amenities like footpaths cannot be privatised by , even by those claiming rights to shelter or livelihood. While the court did not close the door on the residents’ concerns—leaving the to be adjudicated—it made clear that the occupation of a footpath is impermissible, regardless of the circumstances.
The judgment serves as a reminder that the right to housing under must be balanced against the public’s right to use civic infrastructure, and that on spaces meant for pedestrian safety will not be countenanced by the courts.
