Delhi HC warns DDA and DUSIB of being held in ‘wilful disobedience’ of its orders
While an appellate body had held these families to be eligible for rehabilitation, the DUSIB CEO had subsequently overturned the body’s orders, forcing the families to move HC.
Six months since the demolition of Madrasi Camp – a settlement of Tamil-speaking migrants in Capital’s Jangpura – the Delhi High Court on Tuesday again warned the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) of being liable to be held in “wilful disobedience” of its orders for not providing rehabilitation to five families/households initially found to be eligible for rehabilitation.
While an appellate body had held these families to be eligible for rehabilitation, the DUSIB CEO had subsequently overturned the body’s orders, forcing the families to move HC.
In May, the HC had stayed the DUSIB CEO’s order overturning their eligibility for rehabilitation and directed DDA to provide the families with the provisional demand-cum-allotment letter for alternative housing or dwelling unit.
The HC, in an order on September 26, had recorded that “prima facie, the respondents (authorities) are collectively in wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this court”.
However, before issuing further orders against the authorities, Justice Sachin Datta had directed that a meeting be convened between Director (Housing-PMUDAY/DDA), senior DUSIB officials and the concerned PWD chief engineer within two weeks “to resolve the matter and to make sure that the orders passed by this court are complied with”.
On Tuesday, DDA informed the court that the provisional allotment letter for alternative accommodation will be provided, subject to the families paying a “beneficiary contribution” as per a 2015 DUSIB rehabilitation policy, which is more than Rs 1 lakh.
However, the petitioners pointed out that such a demand was not made to the 189 families found eligible for rehabilitation.
Story continues below this ad
Of the 370 families, 182 were found to be ineligible for rehabilitation. Several of these ineligible families had then filed appeals before DUSIB, seeking reconsideration. Meanwhile, the 189 eligible families have been provided alternative accommodation in Narela.
Justice Datta on Tuesday recorded that while the authorities held a meeting in September – as was directed – “however, it appears that resolution still continues to evade the concerned authorities in as much as the provisional allotment letters have not been issued despite the (court’s) directions…”
Noting that “there is no reason why the petitioners be treated differently and be required to pay beneficiary contribution directly to DDA as a precondition for compliance of (court’s September) order”, the HC again directed DDA to comply with its direction and “issue provisional demand-cum-allotment letter without insisting on beneficiary contribution”.
The HC will hear compliance reports regarding its direction on February 2 – the next date of hearing. It recorded that in case of non compliance, it “shall be construed as wilful disobedience” by the authorities and “the concerned official is required to be present in court”.
Story continues below this ad
In March, observing that the Barapullah drain was blocked due to the Madrasi Camp, the HC had directed for its demolition, which was undertaken on June 1.
Prior to its demolition, the court had directed DDA and DUSIB to ensure amenities at the flats in Narela – allotted to eligible Madrasi Camp dwellers – and directed the authorities to hold special camps to handover possession letters and facilitate bank loans.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
