‘We are a welfare state, can’t lose sight of it’: Delhi HC dismisses appeal by DDA against Jangpura slum rehabilitation

As per the single judge’s directions, the DDA had 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 HC relief for the dwellers had come after 18 years since their dwellings were razed — on November 8, 2006 — by the MCD and DDA without prior notice or granting an opportunity for a hearing to the slum dwellers.

The appeal by the DDA opposed the dwellers’ consideration for rehabilitation under the 2004 policy, and had further submitted that “they were illegally squatting at the Jangpura drain and conducting hazardous, dangerous, large-scale, illegal commercial activity endangering safety of themselves and their surroundings”.

The DDA had further pointed out that under provisions of the 2004 policy, “no alternative plot shall be provided to such illegal occupants who are conducting purely commercial activity from their premises”.

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, orally addressing the counsel for the DDA, remarked, “No evidence (that they were carrying out hazardous business)…What do you expect from ragpickers living in such jhuggis? … this is incidental to their residence there … Ultimately we are a welfare state, we can’t lose sight of it. Just tell us, which jhuggi is being used only for residence. The strata these people belong to, they’re rag pickers.”

While the DDA argued that even among commercial activities being carried out from slums “a differentiation has to be made between those selling milk” and those conducting “hazardous activities” and impressed that such a court order “will open gates for carrying out hazardous activities”, the division bench, also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, countered: “Correct. For that there has to be a proper survey.”

Notably, on November 15, 2010, the HC had directed the DDA and DUSIB to carry out a survey to determine the eligibility of the slum dwellers for rehabilitation. The petitioners had then appeared before the authorities with documents. However, in 2011, the authorities concluded that no survey could be conducted as the jhuggis, razed in 2006, did not exist at the site anymore.

From the homepage

‘Pursue before ECI’: Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea seeking SIT probe into Rahul Gandhi’s ‘vote chori’ allegations

In Prashant Kishor’s second list, expansion of promise in first – representation to all castes, classes

Husband and wife claiming same benefit? Centre flags 31 lakh PM-Kisan cases after review