In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court clarified that individuals who have encroached upon public land do not possess an inherent right to continue their occupation while awaiting the resolution of their rehabilitation claims. Justice Dharmesh Sharma, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a distinct process from the removal of encroachments. The court's observations came in the context of petitions filed by residents of the Bhoomiheen Camp in Govind Puri, who sought to prevent their eviction by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and demanded rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.
The petitioners contended that their eviction would violate their fundamental rights, as they had been residing in the area for several years. They argued that the DDA should halt demolition activities until a comprehensive survey was conducted by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) to ascertain their eligibility for rehabilitation. However, the court found that the DDA had already conducted a survey in October 2019, which was carried out in the presence of the jhuggi occupants, video-recorded, and utilized a mobile application to ensure accuracy. The court noted that notices informing residents about the survey had been prominently displayed within the JJ cluster, and the process adhered to the guidelines set forth under the 2015 Policy.
Justice Sharma observed that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that their jhuggis were notified by DUSIB or that they had been constructed before January 1, 2015, as required under the policy. The court further noted that the jhuggis lacked structured numbering assigned by civic authorities, bearing only arbitrary, self-assigned numbers by the occupants, which made locating specific jhuggis inherently challenging. In light of these factors, the court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to rehabilitation under the DUSIB Policy, 2015.
The court also addressed the broader issue of encroachments on public land, stating that such actions cannot be claimed as a fundamental right. It emphasized that the right to rehabilitation arises solely from the prevailing policy, which binds the petitioners, and that the determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land. The court highlighted that allowing encroachers to continue occupying public land pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims would unduly impede public projects and hinder urban development initiatives.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's stance on unauthorized occupation of public land and the importance of adhering to established policies for rehabilitation. It also reinforces the principle that the right to rehabilitation is not an absolute constitutional entitlement but is contingent upon compliance with specific criteria outlined in relevant policies. The decision serves as a precedent for addressing similar cases involving encroachments and rehabilitation claims, ensuring that such matters are resolved in accordance with the law and established procedures.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.