Back
Riverbed Rescue or Forced Exile? Uttarakhand HC Backs Slum Relocation
In a decisive ruling on , the , presided over by Justice Pankaj Purohit , dismissed a batch of led by Rajeshwari Yadav Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 739 of 2026 and connected matters). The court upheld eviction notices issued to residents of Kathbangla Basti along the Rispana River in Dehradun, deeming the relocation to government-allotted flats as legitimate rehabilitation rather than punitive eviction.
From Riverbanks to Notices: The Basti's Battle Unfolds
Kathbangla Basti, home to daily wage laborers and informal workers, hugs the dry bed of the Rispana River. Residents claim longstanding occupancy predating the cutoff under the (extended till via amendments). On , authorities issued eviction notices to about 124 families, directing them to vacate within 15 days and move to rehabilitation flats, with demolition threatened for non-compliance. A follow-up unsigned, unstamped notice pasted on , shortened the deadline to three days.
Petitioners argued this violated protective statutes like the , and the 2018 Act, which impose a moratorium on punitive actions and mandate surveys, consultations, and comprehensive schemes before relocation.
Desperate Defenses: Slum Dwellers Cry Foul
Petitioners' counsel highlighted procedural lapses—no socio-economic survey, no family consultations, no disclosed policy, and selective relocation leaving most in limbo. They stressed vulnerability: these were sole homes and livelihood bases for large families in informal jobs. Objections submitted on , went unaddressed, rendering actions arbitrary and in defiance of judicial moratoriums till . Concerns included floodplain safety of proposed flats and rushed processes ignoring .
Authorities Counter: Compliance and Caution Prevail
Respondents, including the State and local bodies, defended the moves as aligned with orders (Civil Appeal No. 1440/2025, ) and directives (OA No. 417/2022, ). Flats were ready under rehabilitation schemes; this wasn't punishment but protection from flash floods in a hazardous riverbed. The 2018 Act's object—sustainable urban development via slum rehabilitation—was being fulfilled, not flouted.
Decoding the Law: Rehab Trumps Rhetoric
Justice Purohit scrutinized the 2018 Act's objects and , defining slums and prioritizing rehabilitation. The court clarified that 's abeyance on punitive actions doesn't bar relocation with alternatives; it's the Act's core purpose. Residing in a flood-prone dry riverbed posed imminent dangers, justifying urgent state intervention. Precedents from higher courts underscored environmental and safety imperatives, distinguishing welfare-driven relocation from mere demolition.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The above said Act was enacted for the purpose of rehabilitation of slums situated in all urban bodies of Uttarakhand and the respondent-Authorities by the impugned notice is trying to achieve its object by rehabilitating the petitioners who are living in dry river bed and are in danger if any flash flood or natural calamity occurs."
"The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a punitive action is being taken against the petitioners also does not hold any water as the petitioners have been allotted suitable flats by the Government for their rehabilitation."
These quotes, drawn from paragraphs 11 and 12, encapsulate the court's pivot: statutory intent favors proactive rehabilitation over stasis.
Gavel Falls: Petitions Dismissed, Path Cleared
The were deemed " " and dismissed en masse. No quashing of notices; relocation proceeds. Practically, this greenlights clearing the riverbed, safeguarding lives amid Uttarakhand's calamity-prone terrain while enforcing urban planning. For future cases, it signals courts will scrutinize relocation claims contextually—provision of alternatives neutralizes "punitive" labels under welfare laws. Slum advocates may eye appeals, but the balance tilts toward safety and statute.
This outcome echoes broader tensions in India's urban slums: balancing right to shelter with ecological imperatives, as noted in contemporaneous reports on the Rispana clearances.
