Encroachers Can’t Claim Public Land in Name of Rehabilitation: Delhi HC

While dismissing the batch of petitions, the court observed that the rehabilitation process had concluded after four years and found no justifiable ground to reopen the matter;

By :  Ritu Yadav
Update: 2025-05-28 10:15 GMT

Encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land merely because their rehabilitation claims are pending, the Delhi High Court has held, noting that such occupation would unduly impede public projects.

A bench led by Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed a batch of petitions filed by residents challenging the demolition of their jhuggi-jhopri structures at Bhoomiheen Camp by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), contending that the action was contrary to the “2015 Policy.

"Encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy, as such a position would unduly impede public projects," the court observed.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, wherein the top court had acknowledged that encroachers must be given notice before eviction. However, it clarified that the State is under no mandatory obligation to provide alternative accommodation. In case such accommodation is to be provided, it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The petitioners before the High Court contended that they had been living as residents of Bhoomiheen Camp for years and that their homes were demolished without notice or a survey. They also contended that they must be rehabilitated under the 2015 Policy, which mandates in-situ rehabilitation of eligible jhuggi dwellers. The petitioners also deemed the DDA’s actions as arbitrary and violative of their right to shelter enshrined under the Constitution.

On the other hand, the DDA contended that the 2015 Policy and Protocol were duly followed. It was submitted that surveys were conducted at Bhoomiheen Camp by the outsourced agency, SPYM, which deployed approximately 15–20 teams to collect the necessary data. The agency conducted a video-recorded survey using a mobile application.

After completion of the survey, the DDA stated that public notices were issued and a facilitation camp was organised. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the deadline for submitting claims was extended to September 30, 2020. Following this, the final list was forwarded to the Eligibility Committee. On April 5, 2023, the DDA issued demolition notices.

Weighing the contentions raised, the Court noted that the DDA has substantially adhered to all prescribed procedures in surveying the JJ clusters in question. It also added that jhuggis do not have structured numbering assigned by civic authorities, but rather bear arbitrary, self-assigned numbers by occupants, resulting in a disorganized layout. This circumstance makes locating any specific jhuggi by number inherently challenging.

"This Court finds merit in the plea of DDA that the petitioners’ allegation of an improper survey process lacks any basis and goes beyond the pleadings in the instant writ petitions," the court added.

Noting that the DDA had demonstrated that the survey was conducted, the Court was of the view that the petitioners in the present case failed to explain their absence from the survey and also failed to approach the Claims and Objections Redressal Committee. It further noted that most petitions were filed only after the publication of the demolition notice.

The Court also took note of the fact that the rehabilitation process had only recently concluded after four years, with nearly Rs 835.88 crore spent.

Therefore, it found no valid ground to delay or reopen the completed process, which had been carried out duly.

"There is no gainsaying that the petitioners have no vested right to seek rehabilitation, as it is not an absolute constitutional entitlement available to encroachers such as themselves. The right to rehabilitation arises solely from the prevailing policy, which binds the petitioners. The determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land," the court added.

Title: Ram Dev Rai & Anr. v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board 



Tags:    

Similar News