Delhi High Court directs DDA, DUSIB to rehabilitate jhuggi jhopdi residents displaced in 2006

The Delhi High Court recently set aside Delhi Developmental Authority (DDA) and Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB)'s refusal to rehabilitate the displaced Jhuggie jhopadi residents removed from the DBS Camp area in Jangpura in 2006 [Ziaul Haque & Ors vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr].

Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the authorities to rehabilitate the 43 residents, who fulfil the eligibility criteria as per the DDA rehabilitation policy dated February 3, 2004.

The Court observed that the displaced residents had adequately proved their residential status at the time of the demolition and thus, established their eligibility.

It further reasoned that while the emphasis by the DDA and DUSIB on the use of the Jhuggies for storing hazardous plastic waste and other materials was a valid concern, the DDA policy does not automatically exclude those who might have engaged in minor commercial activities, provided these activities were incidental to their residential use.

"Rather, the policy makes a distinction between purely commercial use, which disqualifies a dweller, and dual use, which does not. Therefore, the strict focus on alleged commercial use by the Respondents fails to adequately consider the full scope of the rehabilitation policy in force at the relevant time," the Court said.

It added there was no direct or documented evidence showing that hazardous waste was stored in these Jhuggies as a primary activity.

"Without such evidence, the Court cannot conclude that the Petitioners’ use was exclusively commercial or that they should be automatically disqualified for rehabilitation under the policy. The only evidence relied upon by the Respondents—newspaper reports, photographs, and the demolition records—fails to categorically prove that the primary purpose of the Petitioners’ occupation was either commercial, residential or was there dual usage."

The petitioners had challenged the decision dated January 30, 2015 passed by DDA and DUSIB whereby their request for rehabilitation was rejected.

The Court said the approach of authorities in evaluating the eligibility had been unduly narrow, focusing primarily on alleged commercial activities while neglecting substantial evidence supporting the claim of residential status.

"The Court finds that a comprehensive evaluation of all available evidence is essential in such cases, ensuring that no single factor, such as the presence of commercial activity, unduly prejudices the overall assessment of eligibility. The rehabilitation policy in place clearly provides for a pre-demolition surveyand also acknowledges the possibility of dual usage. The Respondents’ failure to account for these provisions, alongside the verified documentation of residence, represents a significant oversight that warrants correction," it added.

Accordingly, the Court granted relief to the petitioners.

Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Nisha Tiwari represented the petitioners.

Advocate Kritika Gupta appeared for DDA.

Standing Counsel Parvinder Chauhan along with advocates Mahima Anand and Hema Sukhija appeared for DUSIB. 

[Read Judgment]