J&K migrant workers: HC upholds eviction but asks Chandigarh to frame rehab policy

“It is significant to note that the petitioners have been staying in the quarters for about 37 years and it would be unjust and harsh to direct their eviction forthwith. It would be in the interest of justice that they be accorded reasonable time to make alternative arrangements and vacate the premises. We also direct the respondents to consider rehabilitation of the petitioners as they have been residing in Chandigarh for almost four decades and, if necessary, consider framing a policy in that regard,” the court observed.

The case traces back to the early 1970s, when workers such as Salinder Kumar and Abdul Samad Mir migrated from the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir to Chandigarh in search of work. In 1983–1984, the J&K administration requested the Chandigarh Administration to provide temporary accommodation for these seasonal migrant labourers during the harsh winters. They were subsequently allotted quarters numbered 1001 to 1060 in Sector 29-B on a temporary basis.

Over time, the arrangement turned contentious. The J&K authorities later sought possession of the quarters, alleging unauthorised occupation. In 2012, the Estate Officer ordered their eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which was later upheld by higher authorities and the high court.

Quoting from the earlier judgment, the present bench reiterated: “Merely because the petitioner claims to have been in possession of the property for the last 28 years would not itself clothe him with right, title or interest in the labour quarter, which was meant only as a night shelter and temporary arrangement for migrant labour as licensees.”

The petitioners argued that their long-term residence entitled them to rehabilitation, contending that eviction without alternatives violated their right to livelihood. The respondents, including the Union of India and the Chandigarh Administration, maintained that no policy existed for permanent rehabilitation and that the quarters were never meant for continuous occupation.

While dismissing the pleas against eviction, the court acknowledged the petitioners’ long stay and the potential hardship involved, directing the authorities to explore rehabilitation measures. The ruling, covering multiple connected petitions, also brings attention to broader questions about housing rights and welfare for migrant workers in urban areas.

From the homepage

‘Shocked, but it’s a forgotten chapter’: CJI Gavai on shoe-attack in Supreme Court

Muttaqi in India: Why New Delhi is increasing engagement with Afghanistan’s Taliban

Academics, professionals, ex-RJD MLC, famous singer in Prashant Kishor’s first list for Bihar