Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned decision made by the respondents in a joint meeting on January 30, 2015. The Court directed the respondents to rehabilitate the 43 petitioners who fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per the DDA rehabilitation policy dated February 3, 2004.
Facts
The petitioners, residents of a Jhuggie Jhopadi cluster at DBS Camp, Jangpura-B, New Delhi, were displaced after the demolition of their homes by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 2006. The demolition was carried out without prior notice or an opportunity for the residents to remove their belongings. The petitioners, who had resided in the area for more than two decades, sought rehabilitation based on a 2004 survey conducted by the Slum and JJ Department, which confirmed their long-term residency. However, their request for rehabilitation was denied by the respondents in a joint meeting held on January 30, 2015, prompting this legal challenge.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners are eligible for rehabilitation under the DDA rehabilitation policy of 2004.
- Whether the respondents acted lawfully in rejecting the petitioners’ claims for rehabilitation.
- Whether the petitioners’ engagement in commercial activities disqualified them from rehabilitation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioners claimed long-term residency in the DBS Camp area, supported by the 2004 survey and other documents such as ration cards and voter IDs.
- They argued that the denial of rehabilitation was inconsistent with previous findings by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) in 2013, which declared 43 petitioners eligible for relocation.
- The petitioners contended that the impugned decision violated the principles laid down in Sudama Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi.
- The petitioners maintained that the use of their jhuggies for commercial purposes was incidental and did not disqualify them from rehabilitation under the DDA policy, 2004.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The DDA argued that the petitioners were involved in illegal commercial activities, particularly the storage of hazardous plastic waste, which disqualified them from rehabilitation under the DDA policy, 2004.
- The respondents claimed that the writ petition was without merit, as the joint decision to reject the petitioners’ claims was based on a thorough assessment of the situation, including demolition records and newspaper reports.
- The DDA also pointed to a writ petition filed by the Jangpura Residents Welfare Association, which raised concerns about the safety risks posed by the petitioners’ activities.
Analysis of the Law
The DDA policy of 2004, applicable in this case, was designed to provide rehabilitation to displaced JJ cluster residents, provided they met specific eligibility criteria. The policy allowed for rehabilitation even in cases where dwellings were used for both residential and commercial purposes. The Court found that the respondents had failed to consider the full scope of the policy and had focused unduly on alleged commercial activities without sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioners were primarily engaged in illegal operations.
Precedent Analysis
The petitioners relied on Sudama Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi, where the court held that displaced persons must be considered for rehabilitation under government policies. The respondents attempted to distinguish this case by pointing to the alleged commercial activities of the petitioners, but the Court found the reliance on Sudama Singh relevant and persuasive.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the respondents’ decision to deny rehabilitation was arbitrary and lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The use of newspaper reports and photographs as the basis for rejecting the petitioners’ claims was deemed insufficient. The petitioners had provided valid documents, including ration cards and voter IDs, which had been verified by government agencies. Additionally, the Court noted that the DDA policy of 2004 permitted rehabilitation even for residents who had used their dwellings for both residential and commercial purposes.
Conclusion
The writ petition was allowed. The Court set aside the respondents’ decision and directed them to rehabilitate the 43 petitioners in accordance with the DDA policy of 2004. The Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive assessment of the petitioners’ eligibility and found that the respondents had failed to adequately consider all relevant evidence.
