NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the ecological sensitivity of the Yamuna floodplains, emphasising that any unauthorised encroachment or construction in the area poses a grave threat to the river ecosystem.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that the floodplain is a designated no-construction zone and plays a crucial role in maintaining the river’s natural flow. Encroachments disrupt watercourses, leading to their diversion and contributing to severe flooding in surrounding areas.
The court further noted that experts widely attribute recurring floods in Delhi to human-induced factors, particularly illegal encroachments on riverbeds and drainage systems. These obstructions hinder the natural flow of water within the Yamuna, significantly worsening the severity of floods, the court added.
Justice Sharma made these remarks while dismissing a petition filed by Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi Adhikar Manch, which sought to restrain the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from carrying out demolitions at the JJ Slum in Dhobi Ghat, Batla House, until a proper survey and rehabilitation process was completed as per the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Policy.
Rejecting the plea with a cost of Rs 10,000, the court ruled that the land in question had been acquired by the DDA for the purpose of channelising and protecting the Yamuna. The removal of unauthorised occupants, therefore, aligned with the larger public interest.
The court further clarified that under the DUSIB Act, 2010, and the 2015 Policy, not all slum dwellers or JJ Bastis are automatically entitled to alternative housing. Clause 2(a)(i) of the 2015 Policy (Part A) explicitly states that only those JJ Bastis established before January 1, 2006, are protected from removal without a provision for alternative housing.
“The JJ Basti in question does not figure in the list of 675 notified JJ Bastis maintained by DUSIB, reinforcing the fact that the residents are occupying the area illegally,” the court said. The court also ruled that the petitioner union had no locus standi to file the petition, as it failed to specify the number of affected individuals, the
exact area, or the size of the encroached land. The court held such sweeping reliefs could not be granted under writ jurisdiction and allegations of procedural lapses in the demolition drive lacked legal merit.