Status quo on Mehrauli demolition after 15 pleas by residents

While hearing the matter Justice Arora asked DDA as to why the demarcation report was not shared with the residents of the area, asking them to also supply a copy to the residents so that they can raise objections if any. Another plea moved by 17 residents of an apartment building in Khasra No. 1151/3 min which was granted protection from the demolition action last week is also listed on Thursday.

Justice Arora also halted demolition action at Ghosiya Slum colony in Mehrauli Ward 8 after the Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board said that the slum is in their list of jhuggi jhopri clusters and is eligible for rehabilitation. On Friday The counsel for the colony had previously relied on the Delhi Urban Slum and Rehabilitation and Location Policy, 2015 of DUSIB to argue that since DDA is the land-owning agency “it is obliged to rehabilitate the residents of slum colony prior to their eviction”. The HC today sought DDA’s response after the authority’s counsel submitted that since slums had been demolished in 2012 they are not eligible for rehabilitation. The HC extended the status quo on the demolition drive for 400 jhuggis in the slum colony till February 17, while listing the matter for hearing on the said date.

Meanwhile in a plea moved by Mehrauli Minorities Resident and Shop Owners Welfare Association, a single judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna on Tuesday, without interfering with the demolition exercise at this stage, issued notice to the DDA and directed that the matter be placed before the division bench headed by the Chief Justice, where a similar matter is already pending listing it on February 17, subject to the orders of the Chief Justice.

The association relied on a February 11 order passed by the revenue minister Kailash Gahlot directing the District Magistrate (South) to conduct fresh demarcation of the land in the area and ensure people who are likely to be affected are present during the exercise. It was argued that despite this, fresh demarcation had not been carried out and demolition was being conducted by DDA on the basis of a previous 2021 demarcation report.

DDA argued that it is the land owning agency in the present case and the demolition exercise was carried out in terms of the order passed by a division bench of the high court in December 23 last year for removal of encroachments in Mehrauli Archaeological Park. DDA had “categorically stated” before the division bench that religious structures as well as graveyards will not be demolished in the area and that demolition will be done only as per the 2021 demarcation report and only encroachers are being removed.

One of the pleas before Justice Arora is moved by one Rekha Manocha and 14 other residents of Ward 8, Mehrauli seeks quashing of the February 12 demolition order claiming that their individual properties which lie in Khasra number 1151/3 min do not fall within the Khasra numbers mentioned in the demolition notice. The residents have claimed that these are self owned properties which have been in existence for more than 50 years.

It has been stated in the plea moved filed by advocate Vidit Gupta that the title deeds of the properties “being duly registered sale deeds wherein the Petitioners have paid stamp duty to the office of SDM, Mehrauli clearly states that the Khasra no.’s of the properties being 1151/3 and 820/1 in village Mehrauli being an urbanized village”.

“The chain of documents of the title of the properties clearly shows that the Khasra no.’s mentioned therein and prove beyond an iota of doubt that the properties of the Petitioners is clearly distinct from the Khasra No’s of the which illegal occupancy has been carried out in the demolition notice. The properties of the Petitioners are therefore not part of the Khasra no.’s mentioned in the said demolition order as aforesaid of the village ‘Ladha Sarai’. Therefore the aforesaid demolition order is wrongly pasted on the buildings of the Petitioners and therefore is liable to be quashed qua the Petitioners herein and the Respondents may be directed by this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the same demolition order issued against the Petitioners,” the plea claims.