Encroachers can’t claim right on public land: Delhi high court

Delhi High Court rules encroachers can't occupy public land pending rehabilitation claims, dismissing over 200 residents' pleas against DDA demolitions.

The Delhi high court has ruled that encroachers do not have the right to incessantly occupy public land until their rehabilitation claims are resolved as it is to the detriment of the public at large.

The judgement comes days after the high court on May 26 and May 30 dismissed pleas filed by over 40 residents, whose names according to DDA were not in the survey list. (HT Archive)

Justice Dharmesh Sharma in a ruling delivered on Friday dismissed pleas filed by more than 200 residents of Bhoomiheen Camp in southeast Delhi’s Govindpuri challenging the Delhi Development Authority’s (DDA) decision to demolish their huts and refusal to rehabilitate them as per the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (2015 policy)

“The right to rehabilitation arises solely from the prevailing policy that binds them. The determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land. Encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy, as this would unduly impede public projects,” the judge said, in his ruling released later.

He added, “The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are not only flawed due to the misjoinder of multiple parties with multiple causes of action but also fail to meet the essential threshold provided by the 2015 policy for being considered eligible for relocation and rehabilitation. None of the petitioners has any legal right to continue occupying the JJ cluster incessantly, to the detriment of the public at large.”

The plea painted a picture that DDA’s action of initiating steps for the demolition of JJ clusters and proceeding with physical eviction without affording due process or considering their documentary evidence was violative of their constitutional right to shelter.

In their plea, they had also sought alternative accommodation in accordance with the 2015 policy. DDA had found the residents ineligible on various grounds including their failure to possess a separate ration card for upper floor jhuggi, residing on the second floor, and absence of their name in the Voter List Entry Prior to January 2015.

In its order, the court provided relief to 26 residents whose appeals were allowed by the appellate authority but rejected by DDA. Justice Sharma also directed DDA to provide alternative dwelling to another resident whose appeal was allowed by the appellate authority but which DDA failed to provide within six weeks.

The judgement comes days after the high court on May 26 and May 30 dismissed pleas filed by over 40 residents, whose names according to DDA were not in the survey list.

On Wednesday, DDA had said that the demolition was carried out last month following the dismissal of writ pleas by the high court.

The nearly three-decade-old slum cluster was home to migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal, among others, the single-judge bench was told during the hearings. The inhabitants included women who worked as domestic help, labourers in factories and local shops, and others who had meagre sources of income.