Priya Gour
Published on: 4th August 2022 at 18:47 IST
Delhi HC Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, noted that it is unfair to evict people without any prior notice. The Bench was hearing a petition of the demolition of several jhuggi jhopris or huts in the Shakarpur area of the national capital.
The Court said that people can’t be evicted at odd hours of day and night and be left shelter less.
The Court ordered for timely consultation between the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) with the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB). It also said that a reasonable time period be provided to people along with basic arrangements for their temporary rehabilitation be made.
Undue eviction by DDA in removing a person, or an encroacher, overnight from his residence, is wrong. Consultation with DUSIB before any such encroachment should be a must.
“Evictions by bulldozer at their doorstep early in the morning or late in the evening, without any notice, rendering them completely shelter-less, is wrong.”
The Bench also said, “A reasonable period has to be given to such persons and a temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities.”
The Court was listening the petition filed by Shakarpur Slum Union which claimed that the DDA officials, without any notice arrived at the area and demolished about 300 jhuggis. The demolition continued for 3 days and many of the resident were not allowed to collect their belongings. The most petitioner belongs from the State of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal and are doing menial works like rag picking, rickshaw pullers, auto drivers and domestic workers.
The also submits in their plea that the DDA ought to have followed the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 to rehabilitate and relocate the residents.
However, the Court refused to direct a survey to be carried out in the area to determine the notified JJ clusters which would be entitled to the relief under the policy and disposed of the petition with a direction to the DDA to carry out further demolition only in consultation with the DUSIB.
The Court also said, “The material on record in the present case, did not show that the jhuggi was in existence prior to 2006 and was thus covered by the rehabilitation policy.”
“It however does not mean that an unidentified cluster would not be entitled to rehabilitation.”
The Court directed the DDA to give atleast sufficient time to the dwellers to have alternative arrangements or take steps to accomodate the dwellers in the shelters provided by the DUSIB for three months.
Hence, the needful directions in this regard were issued by the Court to the DDA.