Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, in a writ petition seeking relief against the demolition of the Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi cluster, held that this cluster is an unauthorized construction which constitutes a substantial threat to the ecologically sensitive floodplains of the River Yamuna. 

The bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held, “Since the subject site was acquired by the DDA for the channelization and protection of the River Yamuna, the removal of the petitioner union from the subject site serves the greater public interest”. 

The petitioner requested the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to suspend demolition until a survey was conducted, and the residents were rehabilitated per the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Policy, 2015. 

The petitioner asserted that the jhuggi cluster had existed since the 1990s, comprising 800 households, primarily occupied by daily wage laborers and domestic workers. Many residents had documentary proof of residence predating January 1, 2015, fulfilling the eligibility criteria for rehabilitation under the DUSIB Policy. On September 23, 2020, police officials instructed residents to vacate their homes without prior notice. The following day, DDA officials, accompanied by police personnel, bulldozers, and municipal trucks, demolished the dwellings. The petitioner alleged that belongings were taken without giving residents an opportunity to retrieve them, and those who protested faced physical assault and unlawful detention.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Haider Ali, emphasized that the site was listed for rehabilitation under the DUSIB Additional JJ Clusters List. The petitioner argued that despite citing environmental concerns, the DDA failed to provide alternative housing, rendering the area uninhabitable. It was contended that the right to housing is an essential component of the right to life under Article 21.

The court first noted that the union was not a natural legal person and, therefore, lacked the right to file the present petition in a representative capacity. Moreover, there was an inherent contradiction in the assertion of possession, as it was acknowledged that members of the union had been evicted on multiple occasions but had subsequently returned to reoccupy the site.  

The court noted that as part of its efforts to restore and rejuvenate the Yamuna River Floodplains, the DDA had divided the entire area into ten modules or blocks, with the subject site falling within the designated Biodiversity Park. The court observed that the union consisting of unauthorized occupants and trespassers, had been unlawfully occupying the disputed land, thereby causing substantial harm and pollution to the Yamuna River. 

The court opined that it “has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner union has no locus standi to institute the present petition and to espouse the cause of an unknown numbers of individuals without even specifying the exact area, size, or location of their plots”. Such reliefs could not be sought under writ jurisdiction in a blanket manner. The union failed to establish any legal right, title, or interest of its members in the disputed site. Reiterating, the subject site was uninhabitable. 

Furthermore, the court held, “The petitioner union has failed to demonstrate any legal right, title, or interest of its member in the subject site. At the cost of repetition, the subject site is not even capable of being inhabited. Moreover, the so-called members of the petitioner union, being rank tress-passers or unauthorized occupants, are not entitled to the benefit of any Rehabilitation Policy framed by the DUSIB”. 

The floodplain area had been designated as a prohibited activity zone and played a crucial role in maintaining the river ecosystem. Encroachments on this land disrupted the natural flow of water, causing diversions and contributing to flooding in adjacent areas. Several experts opined that recurrent floods in Delhi were largely man-made, resulting from unlawful encroachments on drains and riverbeds, which obstructed the natural flow of water into and within the Yamuna River, exacerbating flood severity.  

Additionally, the court opined unauthorized constructions in the area posed a grave threat to the ecologically sensitive Yamuna floodplains. Since the disputed site had been acquired by the DDA for the channelization and protection of the Yamuna River, the removal of the union served a greater public interest. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Haider Ali
For DDA: Standing Counsel  Shobhana Takiar with Advocates Kritika Gupta and Kuljeet Singh
For DUSIB: Advocates Anuj Chaturvedi, Harshits Maheshwari and Pawan Karan Deo
Case Title: Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi Adhikar Manch v DDA (W.P. (C) 5822/2021)