'Ecologically Sensitive Area': Delhi HC Denies Plea to Halt Eviction of Pakistani Hindu Refugees from Yamuna Floodplains
The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a writ petition seeking to restrain the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from evicting around 800 Pakistani Hindu refugees living at a camp in Majnu Ka Tila. The bench underscored the importance of preserving the ecologically sensitive Yamuna floodplains, where the camp is situated.
The bench, led by Justice Dharmesh Sharma, held that no legal right could be claimed by the refugees to continue residing on the restricted land. Emphasizing the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the bench stated, “These directives aim to preserve ecological integrity and secure the fundamental human right to a clean and healthy environment for the residents of Delhi and future generations".
The petitioner, represented by Advocates RK Bali and Meghna Bali, relied on the case of Nahar Singh v Union [W.P.(C) 3712/2013], arguing that the government had previously extended support to similarly placed Pakistani nationals. The court, however, clarified that the order had not conferred any legal entitlement to alternate accommodation.
The DDA, represented by Standing Counsel Prabhsahay Kaur, informed the court that the area is designated as Zone ‘O’ under the Delhi Master Plan, where construction and habitation are prohibited due to environmental concerns. Caught between judicial restraint on eviction and NGT mandates requiring removal of encroachments, the bench, on September 10, 2024, directed the Union of India to explore viable relocation options.
In May 2025, the Ministry finally submitted an affidavit citing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The bench, however, observed that the Act does not guarantee land rights or resettlement benefits until citizenship is formally granted. It further noted that under the 2015 Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Policy, only Indian citizens are eligible for relocation benefits, rendering the petitioners ineligible.
The bench reiterated that environmental concerns must prevail over humanitarian considerations, particularly in protected zones where even Indian citizens cannot claim residential rights. Finding no legal basis for the petition, the bench vacated the interim stay on demolition and dismissed the writ.
For Petitioner: Advocates RK Bali and Meghna Bali
For DDA: Standing Counsel Prabhsahay Kaur with Advocates Deeksha L Kakar, Aditya Verma, Rashneet Singh and Sana Parveen
For Union: Standing Counsel Arnav Kumar with Advocate Savi Garg
Case Title: Ravi Ranjan Singh v DDA (2025:DHC:4642)