18 years on, Delhi HC rules in favour of Jangpura slum dwellers whose homes were razed in demolition drive

In its September 17 order, the court of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while directing their rehabilitation, set aside a decision of DUSIB and DDA from January 30, 2015, denying the petitioners’ claim for relief.

Now, the DDA will have to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners as per its 2004 rehabilitation policy instead of the more recent Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The 2004 policy requires slum dwellers to have documentary proof of their existence at the site “prior to 31.01.1990 or post 1990 but before December 31, 1998, till date of removal”.

The slum was razed on November 8, 2006, by the MCD and DDA without prior notice or granting an opportunity of a hearing to the dwellers. The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan and advocate Nisha Tiwari pro bono, claimed over 500 families have been living at DBS Camp in Jangpura B for more than two decades. Ziaul said they protested at Jantar Mantar in the winter of 2006 before moving the HC in 2007.

On November 15, 2010, the HC directed DDA and DUSIB to carry out a survey to determine their eligibility for rehabilitation. The petitioners then appeared before the authorities with documents to substantiate their claim of residence. However, in 2011, the authorities concluded that no survey could be conducted as jhuggis didn’t exist at the site anymore.

Incidentally, in 2004, a survey of the area was conducted by the MCD’s Slum and JJ (Jhuggi Jhopri) Department, which was the predecessor authority of DUSIB.

The dwellers then moved the HC with a contempt petition in 2011. In November of that year, the HC directed DUSIB to verify documents produced by the petitioners and pass a reasoned order. The slum dwellers submitted documents again but to no avail. They moved a second contempt plea.

In January 2013, DUSIB submitted in court only those with valid ration cards issued prior to December 31, 1998, would be eligible for rehabilitation as per the 2004 DDA policy. In May 2013, DUSIB said 43 residents were deemed eligible. However, the DDA challenged DUSIB’s survey on the grounds that it didn’t adhere to the HC’s directions issued on November 15, 2010, whereby DUSIB had to consider DDA’s concerns regarding commercial use of the land by the petitioners for hazardous plastic waste.

Ziaul said the objection was based on the fact that several residents were plastic scrap dealers.

The court then asked DUSIB and DDA to work together to resolve the issue. On January 30, 2015, the claims of all petitioners were rejected and they were declared ineligible for rehabilitation as their dwellings were being used to ‘store hazardous plastic waste’.

Ruling in the petitioners’ favour, Justice Narula held, “… the aforenoted decision is arbitrary… unjust… A holistic reading of the DDA policy, 2004, reveals it was designed to ensure displaced individuals, particularly those genuinely residing in jhuggis, are provided alternative housing… There is no substantial or credible evidence to refute the petitioners’ residential status… Notwithstanding, the policy explicitly contemplates rehabilitation even for those who used their dwellings for both residential and commercial purposes… Lack of clear and convincing evidence to establish that petitioners were solely engaged in illegal hazardous waste activities, the petitioners should be granted the right of rehabilitation as per prevalent DDA policy, 2004.