Demolition drive: Setback for Sunder Nagar ‘jhuggi basti’ dwellers as Delhi HC dismisses plea

The residents had argued that the high court had erred in concluding that the jhuggi jhopri cluster was not in existence before January 1, 2006 overlooking evidence such as the telephone bill, Aadhaar card, election card in drawing such a conclusion. They claimed that the court’s conclusion that none of the residents had annexed any documents showing electricity connection to the dwelling is not relevant to the issue.

According to them, the documents such as election card, Aadhaar Card satisfies the condition that the petitioner and other jhuggi dwellers were residing in the jhuggi jhopri cluster before January 1, 2006.

It was contended that the persons arrayed as parties (appellants) in 2019 plea had in fact annexed the electricity bill to show that they had electricity connection and were residing at jhuggi jhopri cluster in Khasra No.484, Sunder Nagar Nursery, Near DPS, Mathura Road.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora in an order passed on Wednesday, however, said that they disagreed with the submissions. The court noted that the 2019 order records that if the residents could get an election card, bank account, Aadhaar card, they could have also got an electricity connection to the dwelling.

“This court has also held that the appellants having not placed the same, the conclusion one must arrive at, is that they were not residing at that place before January 1, 2006. Even before us, the review petitioner/applicant has not placed any Electricity bill to show that they have been residing in the dwelling before January 01, 2006. On this, their plea is that after privatisation of the electricity distribution, the companies started giving electricity connections only in the year 2008 and not before that. We are unable to accept such a plea, as the same was not the stand before the learned Single Judge or even before this court,” the bench said.

The bench noted that the applications and the review plea have been filed more than four years after the 2019 order in view of proceedings in a contempt plea for violation of a 2011 order, pending before a single judge.

The bench said that the single judge in its August 23 order had clearly said that in case “unauthorised constructions” are not removed at the concerned khasra and its surrounding area and a satisfactory report is not filed, the “court would be constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against the land-owning department and its officers”.

The bench, thereafter, said that the review plea and the connected applications were filed after action was taken by authorities subsequent to the August 23 order.

“The filing of the petition/application, now that is after more than four years, cannot be entertained as the review petitioner/applicant has been sitting pretty for the last four years and it is because of the action, which has been initiated by the respondents, that they have approached this Court,” the bench underscored.

The bench said that if the finding in the 2019 order that the cluster did not exist prior to January 1, 2006 and residents actually did reside during that period then nothing prevented them to approach the HC much earlier to challenge this finding than waiting till the last moment when the demolition action was undertaken.

The residents had also contended that a survey carried out in 2012 features the names of 212 families residing in the JJ Cluster.

They claimed that if the 2012 survey was in place, then the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board could not have argued that the JJ Cluster was not in existence before January 2006. They argued that the basti was a notified cluster in Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board’s list of notified basti cluster and hence were entitled to protection under the Delhi Slum & Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.

The bench said that this contention cannot help the residents’ case since the conclusion drawn by the Single Judge was of a position which was in existence before January 1, 2006; that is, much before the survey in 2012.

The bench also rejected the contention that review petitioner and applicants were not party before the HC when the matters were heard in 2019 calling it misconceived, observing that the earlier writ petition which culminated in the 2019 order in appeal was filed by a party in the representative capacity on behalf of the jhuggi dwellers.