Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the batch of writ petitions challenging the demolition of jhuggi-jhopri (JJ) structures and the rehabilitation process under the 2015 Policy. The Court upheld the Delhi Development Authority’s (DDA) action, noting that:
“This Court is not inclined to interfere in the exercise of the powers vested in the DDA or substitute its own assessment with that of the statutory authorities tasked with the conduct of surveys and determination of eligibility.”
The Court found that DDA had substantially complied with the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and the accompanying Protocol-2015 and that the petitioners had not availed of the statutory remedies.
Facts
- The petitions were filed by residents of Bhoomiheen Camp, Govind Puri, Kalkaji, who claimed that their JJ dwellings, in existence since the 1990s, were demolished without proper rehabilitation.
- Petitioners alleged arbitrary exclusion from the survey and failure to be considered for resettlement despite producing documents required under the 2015 Policy.
- DDA undertook a rehabilitation exercise involving over 8,000 households across JJ clusters (Jawaharlal Camp, Navjeevan Camp, and Bhoomiheen Camp), relocating 1,862 eligible households to EWS flats constructed under PMAY-U at A-14, Kalkaji Extension.
Issues
- Whether the DDA violated the 2015 Policy and Protocol-2015 in excluding petitioners from the survey and rehabilitation process?
- Whether the petitioners, absent from the survey list, are entitled to protection from eviction and demolition?
- Whether DDA was obligated to involve DUSIB in the implementation of the survey and rehabilitation?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Petitioners argued DDA bypassed DUSIB, the statutory nodal agency under the DUSIB Act, 2010.
- Alleged the surveys were not properly publicised, notices were affixed only in select places, and awareness camps were not conducted.
- Claimed that SPYM, the outsourced survey agency, failed to revisit locked houses as required under the Protocol-2015.
- Contended that their constitutional right to shelter under Article 21 was violated.
- Relied on Sudama Singh, Ajay Maken, and Chameli Singh to assert that procedural fairness and right to rehabilitation are integral to the right to life.
Respondent’s Arguments
- DDA contended the petitioners failed to approach the Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC) or Appellate Authority, despite multiple notices and facilitation camps.
- Asserted that the 2015 Policy was scrupulously followed, including conducting surveys, seeking objections, and forming the EDC and Appellate Authority.
- DUSIB had no role as the land belonged to the Central Government, and under Section 10(3) of the DUSIB Act, the Central Government has overriding powers.
- Over 2,891 claims were processed, of which 1,862 were found eligible. Appeals were heard by a three-member appellate body including a retired judge and a retired IAS officer.
Analysis of the Law
- The DUSIB Act empowers the Board to conduct surveys and rehabilitate JJ dwellers but explicitly allows the Central Government to carry out these functions independently for land owned by it [Section 10(3)].
- The Court reaffirmed that the 2015 Policy and Protocol-2015 apply even when DUSIB is not involved, as held in Ajay Maken.
- The eligibility criteria under the 2015 Policy include documentary proof prior to 01.01.2015, presence during the survey, and inclusion in voter rolls from 2012–2015.
- Procedural fairness requires publication of survey plans, opportunity to object, and an appellate mechanism—all of which were found to be satisfied in this case.
Precedent Analysis
- Ajay Maken v. Union of India: Held that procedural safeguards under the 2015 Policy and Protocol-2015 must be followed even when the Central Government directly manages rehabilitation.
- Sudama Singh v. GNCTD: Emphasised the right to adequate housing and protection from arbitrary eviction.
- Gainda Ram v. MCD: Stressed that resettlement must be near place of work.
- Ram Bharose v. DUSIB: Affirmed that non-cooperation with the survey process can result in exclusion from benefits.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court found that DDA had implemented a structured, multilayered process: initial surveys, publication of lists, claims and objections, appeals, and even a final opportunity for submission of documents.
- DDA’s choice to bypass DUSIB was not ultra vires, since the land belonged to the Central Government and DDA had obtained requisite approvals.
- Noted that SPYM carried out door-to-door surveys, maintained videos, and conducted revisits where houses were locked.
- Petitioners either failed to approach the EDC or did so belatedly.
- The court refused to entertain disputed questions of fact regarding individual eligibility in a writ petition, directing petitioners to follow statutory appellate remedies.
Conclusion
The writ petitions were dismissed. The Court held that:
“This Court cannot assume the role of an appellate forum to re-examine individual claims of eligibility or to determine whether the survey agency rightly or wrongly excluded any household.”
It advised that any claim of wrongful exclusion must be taken up with the Appellate Authority.
Implications
- Reaffirms that land-owning agencies under the Central Government are empowered to independently conduct rehabilitation under the DUSIB Act.
- Demonstrates the importance of following the layered grievance redressal mechanism under the 2015 Policy.
- Emphasizes that courts will not interfere in factual determinations concerning survey outcomes unless there is egregious procedural unfairness.
- Sets a precedent for future demolitions and rehabilitation exercises under PMAY-U within the NCT of Delhi.
