Encroaching Government Land not a Fundamental Right: Delhi High Court
While dismissing the plea, the court noted that the petitioner, Bela Estate Mazdoor Basti Samiti, was unable to prove that their jhuggi-jhopdi (JJ) clusters were notified by Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB).
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that encroachment on government property cannot be claimed as a fundamental right, and encroachers cannot claim a right to rehabilitation.
The court was hearing a plea by slum dwellers of ‘Bela Estate’ on the Yamuna floodplain seeking rehabilitation after an eviction notice was issued to them by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The DDA, through the eviction notice, directed them to remove illegal encroachment and to vacate the government land.
While dismissing the slum dwellers' plea, the bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that the petitioner had neither proved the fact that the Jhuggi-Jhopdi (JJ) clusters in ‘Bela Estate’ were notified by Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) nor it had proved that the juggi in these clusters were constructed before January 1, 2015.
“In the present case, it is not the case of the Petitioner that the JJ Clusters in Bela Estate are notified by DUSIB. Though it has been averred in the Petition that the Bela Estate is in existence for more than 70 years but the Petitioner has not placed any documentary evidence in order to support this averment. Therefore, the Petitioner has neither proved the fact that the JJ clusters in Bela Estate were notified by DUSIB nor it has been proved that the jhuggis in these clusters were constructed before the date of 01.01.2015. Hence, they are not entitled for the relief of rehabilitation as per DUSIB Policy, 2015”, the court said.
The petitioners through the present plea claimed that Bela Estate is a large JJ cluster on the western bank of Yamuna and comprises five sub-areas, namely China Colony, Bela Gaon, Malla Gaon, Moolchand Basti, and Kanchan Puri. They sought a stay on the eviction of the residents and stated that if they are evicted, then they may be provided an alternative accommodation for rehabilitation by DUSIB.
On the contrary, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain appearing for Delhi Development Authority (DDA) contended that no entity called ‘Bela Estate’ existed and it was a term deliberately used by the petitioners and alleged that it comprised several villages. He argued that it was a self-coined term by the petitioners to show that all these slum clusters contain more than 50 households, which was a requirement of the DUSIB Policy 2015.
Taking note of the submissions of the petitioner and the DDA, the court opined that the petitioners were not entitled to rehabilitation as per DUSIB Policy 2015. It noted that the petitioners admitted that DDA conducted a survey from 2004 to 2006, and as per the Affidavit of March 21, 2023, the DDA had allocated a total of 6086 plots for alternate housing to the residents who were found eligible in response to the survey.
Conclusively, the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to rehabilitation as per DUSIB Policy, 2015, and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Bela Estate Mazdoor Basti Samiti v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Ors.