NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that people living on public land without permission cannot continue staying there just because they are awaiting the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the relevant government policies.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma made the observation while dismissing a set of petitions by residents of jhuggi jhopri (JJ) clusters in Bhoomiheen Camp, in the city’s Govind Puri area.
These residents had asked the court to stop the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from continuing demolition work and evicting them. They also wanted the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board to carry out a fresh and detailed survey and provide rehabilitation as per the 2015 policy on slum and JJ relocation. The court refused the request and stated that eviction and eligibility for rehabilitation are two separate processes.
“There is no gainsaying that the petitioners have no vested right to seek rehabilitation, as it is not an absolute constitutional entitlement available to encroachers such as themselves. The right to rehabilitation arises solely from the prevailing policy, which binds the petitioners. The determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land,” the court noted.
The judge emphasised that allowing people to stay on government land while their rehabilitation status is decided could delay important public projects.
The DDA had already carried out a survey of the Bhoomiheen Camp back in October 2019. The survey was conducted in the presence of local residents. The DDA had also put up notices across the area to inform residents in advance.
“Notably, the jhuggis do not have structured numbering assigned by civic authorities but rather bear arbitrary, self-assigned numbers by occupants, resulting in a disorganised layout. This circumstance makes locating any specific jhuggi by number inherently challenging. This court finds merit in the plea of DDA that the petitioners’ allegation of an improper survey process lacks any basis and goes beyond the pleadings in the instant writ petitions,” the court said, while pointing out that the petitioners could not explain why they were absent during the survey or why they never contacted the Claims and Objections Redressal Committee to be included in the list.
The court upheld the DDA’s actions as being in line with the 2015 rehabilitation guidelines and dismissed the petitions.