Delhi High Court Allows Eviction of Bastis Near Delhi Race Club; Holds Distant Rehabilitation Permissible Where Nearby Accommodation Is Unavailable
Delhi High Court Permits Eviction of BR Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony; Directs Rehabilitation at Savda Ghevra With Essential Civic Facilities
Facts
The judgment concerns three intra-court appeals filed by residents of Bhai Ram Camp (BR Camp), Masjid Camp and DID Colony, three notified Jhuggi Jhopri bastis in Delhi. Around 717 dwelling units were proposed to be cleared and their occupants relocated to flats at DUSIB Colony, Savda Ghevra.
The residents challenged the judgment dated 11 May 2026 and order dated 13 May 2026 of the learned Single Judge, which had upheld the eviction and rehabilitation process while directing the authorities to ensure education, travel, water, sanitation and other facilities at the relocation site. The Single Judge had originally directed the occupants to vacate within fifteen days.
The bastis were located near the Delhi Race Club. The appellants claimed that their families had been residing there for decades, some even since before 1950.
A High Powered Committee and its sub-committee subsequently considered the rehabilitation proposal. Savda Ghevra was recommended as the relocation site, the recommendation was approved by the HPC on 29 January 2026, and DUSIB formally approved the relocation on 9 April 2026.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether the proposed eviction violated the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and the Draft Protocol for removal of JJ bastis.
- Whether shifting residents approximately 40–45 kilometres away violated the policy preference for in-situ or nearby rehabilitation within five kilometres.
- Whether the Central Government/L&DO could initiate the process instead of DUSIB.
- Whether irregularities alleged in the joint survey and timing of DUSIB approval invalidated the process.
- Whether relocation to Savda Ghevra infringed the residents’ Article 21 rights to shelter, livelihood and dignity.
- What safeguards were necessary to make the rehabilitation meaningful.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants contended that the entire procedure violated the Rehabilitation Policy, 2015 and the Draft Protocol.
Their principal objection was that alternate accommodation was ordinarily required to be provided either in-situ or within five kilometres, whereas Savda Ghevra was around 40–45 kilometres from their present homes. They argued that such a distant shift would severely affect employment, education, healthcare and access to the city.
They further argued that DUSIB was required to act as the nodal agency, but the process had effectively been initiated by L&DO/Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
They challenged the survey because it had been conducted by L&DO and DDA rather than DUSIB jointly with the Land Owning Agency, and contended that DUSIB’s formal approval came only later on 9 April 2026.
The residents additionally complained about alleged deficiencies at Savda Ghevra concerning transportation, schools, healthcare, sewage, sanitation, connectivity and safety.
They relied on Olga Tellis, Sudama Singh and Ajay Maken, contending that dignified rehabilitation was an essential component of Article 21.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Union of India, L&DO and DUSIB opposed the appeals.
They stated that the land was urgently required for the augmentation and strengthening of defence infrastructure and was situated at a strategically significant location.
The respondents maintained that no suitable rehabilitation site was available within five kilometres and that the Rehabilitation Policy itself permitted relocation beyond five kilometres in exceptional circumstances with DUSIB approval.
They further stated that all dwelling units would be rehabilitated, irrespective of whether particular residents had initially been found eligible or ineligible in the joint survey. The Central Government would bear the rehabilitation expenditure and the beneficiary contribution had been waived.
Analysis of the Law
Relocation Beyond Five Kilometres
The Court held that the five-kilometre requirement was not absolute.
Clause 2(a)(iii) of the Rehabilitation Policy permits relocation beyond five kilometres in exceptional circumstances with prior DUSIB approval.
Since no suitable flats, land or space were available within five kilometres and DUSIB had formally approved Savda Ghevra, the relocation site could not be declared contrary to the policy.
Role of Central Government and L&DO
The Court rejected the argument that the Central Government lacked authority to undertake the removal process.
Section 10(1) of the DUSIB Act authorises DUSIB to prepare removal and rehabilitation schemes, but its Explanation expressly preserves the Central Government’s power to remove jhuggis when required.
The Court also found that the Government of India was the Land Owning Agency and that L&DO managed the land on its behalf. The proposal ultimately received consideration and approval from DUSIB, which remained the nodal agency.
The Court therefore found no violation of the DUSIB Act, Rehabilitation Policy or Draft Protocol sufficient to invalidate the eviction process.
Article 21 and Meaningful Rehabilitation
The Court nevertheless emphasized that lawful eviction does not end the State’s constitutional responsibilities.
Rehabilitation must be meaningful and must enable displaced residents to live with human dignity. Shelter, livelihood, health, education, civic amenities and transportation were treated as interconnected aspects of Article 21.
The Court expressly concluded that rehabilitation must guarantee the right to live with human dignity and should be continuously monitored after relocation.
Precedent Analysis
Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi
The Court discussed Sudama Singh extensively for the constitutional understanding of the right to shelter and the consequences of uprooting settled slum dwellers.
The precedent recognised that displacement may affect an entire bundle of rights, including livelihood, shelter, health, education, public transport, civic amenities and dignity.
The Rehabilitation Policy itself reflects Sudama Singh by treating in-situ rehabilitation as the normal preference and relocation as appropriate where in-situ rehabilitation is not feasible.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
The appellants relied upon Olga Tellis for the connection between the right to livelihood and Article 21. The Court accepted the broader constitutional concern underlying that precedent, though it did not hold that it prohibited the present eviction.
Ajay Maken v. Union of India
Ajay Maken was relied upon in support of procedural and substantive protections for persons facing displacement from JJ settlements. Again, the Division Bench used the Article 21 principles to strengthen rehabilitation safeguards rather than invalidate the relocation itself.
Chameli Singh, Shantistar Builders and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
The Rehabilitation Policy reproduced in the judgment refers to these Supreme Court decisions for the principle that the right to life is not merely animal existence and encompasses housing and shelter, including obligations toward impoverished residents living on public land.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench found that the statutory and policy objections did not justify cancellation of the relocation.
The proposal had been considered by the HPC and its sub-committee and ultimately approved by DUSIB. The absence of suitable accommodation within five kilometres provided justification for selecting Savda Ghevra.
At the same time, the Court recognised that moving residents 40–45 kilometres away could substantially affect their daily lives and livelihoods. Merely providing a physical flat would therefore not satisfy the constitutional requirement.
The Court insisted that the authorities honour their undertakings relating to education, transportation, water, sanitation, healthcare and other amenities.
The residents were accordingly required to shift, but under a court-supervised rehabilitation framework rather than through simple eviction followed by abandonment.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court substantially upheld the eviction and relocation of the residents of BR Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony to Savda Ghevra, while strengthening the safeguards imposed by the Single Judge.
The residents were given six weeks to vacate and, within the same period, had to be settled in their allotted accommodation at Savda Ghevra. After that period, the authorities were permitted to clear the land with police assistance if required.
DUSIB was directed to facilitate transportation of the residents’ household articles.
Most importantly, the Court constituted a seven-member Monitoring Committee, chaired by retired Delhi Higher Judicial Service officer Man Mohan Sharma, with senior representatives from DUSIB, DDA, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Delhi Jal Board, Education Department and Health Services.
The Committee was tasked with continuously supervising the rehabilitation and ensuring provision of promised amenities. Its initial tenure was fixed at six months, extendable by two months.
The judgment therefore permits eviction but makes dignified and meaningful rehabilitation an enforceable Article 21 obligation.
Case Details
Case: Rakesh Bansal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; connected with Khushnuma Khan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; Usha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: LPA 382/2026, LPA 391/2026 and LPA 452/2026 with connected applications
Judges: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
Date: 25 August 2026
Result: Appeals disposed of with modification of the Single Judge’s orders. Relocation to Savda Ghevra upheld; six weeks granted for shifting; rehabilitation safeguards made binding; Monitoring Committee constituted for continuous supervision.
