Quashed

Ram Shankar and Ors. v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC11 Mar 2019W.P.(C)/2389/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging vacation notice for unconfirmed jhuggies sought in situ rehabilitation under the 2015 Policy. Court held petitioners ineligible as cluster had less than 50 households. Exemption from immediate removal allowed subject to compliance with law.

What did the court decide?

Exemption allowed from demolishing the jhuggies, subject to all just exceptions; application disposed.

Ram Shankar and Ors. Vs Government of National Capital… — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2389/2019

¶4

RAM SHANKAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr Amresh Anand, Advocate. versus GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Anupam Srivastava, ASC for GNCTD with Ms Divya Joshi, Advocate for R-1. Ms Sarika Singh, Senior Panel Counsel for R-2.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 11.03.2019

¶7

CM No. 11101/2019

¶8

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶9

The application stands disposed of.

¶10

W.P.(C) 2389/2019 and CM No. 11102/2019

¶11

The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia , praying as under:-

¶12

“a) Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus / order/ direction against the Respondents, to abstain them from vacating/ demolishing/ taking coercive steps with respect to the jhuggis located behind Durga Mandir, Krishna Menon Lane, New Delhi - 110011;

¶13

b) Direct the Respondents to provide to the Petitioners in situ rehabilitation or alternate accommodation within a radius of 5 kms in accordance with the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015;

¶14

c) Quash and set aside the impugned vacation notice dated 01.03.2019 signed by the Assistant Engineer-I of Respondent No. 2/ CPWD; and”

¶15

The petitioners claimed that they are residing behind the Durga Mandir, Krishna Menon Lane, New Delhi-110011, since 1986. The petitioners are aggrieved on account of the action of respondent no.2 (Central Public Works Department- CPWD), calling upon the petitioners to vacate jhuggies / land occupied by them. It is the petitioner’s case that they are entitled to be re-located, in terms of the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Relocation and Rehabilitation Policy Scheme, 2015 (hereafter ‘the Policy’).

¶16

A plain reading of the policy indicates that jhuggi jhopri basties which have come up before 01.01.2006, are protected in terms of the Policy and are not to be removed without providing alternate housing.

¶17

Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 defines the term ‘ jhuggi jhopri basti ’ as under:-

¶18

“2(g) “jhuggi jhopri basti” means any group of jhuggis which the Board may, by notification, declare as a jhuggi jhopri basti in accordance with the following factors, namely:-

¶19

(i) the group of jhuggis is unfit for human habitation;

¶20

(ii) it, by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such jhuggis, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities, or any combination of these factors, is detrimental to safety, health or hygiene; and

¶21

(iii) it is inhabited at least by fifty households as

¶22

existing on 31st March, 2002:

¶23

Provided that the Board may, by order, attach any jhuggi or jhuggis scattered in the nearby areas to any jhuggi jhopri basti and such jhuggi or jhuggis shall be deemed to be part of such jhuggi jhopri basti;”

¶24

In this case, it is admitted that only nine jhuggis exist in the area, in question, and the number of households in the cluster are less than 50. In this view, the petitioners would not be eligible for the benefit under the aforesaid Policy.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the petitioners had been permitted to set up residences on the land in question, as they were employees of the MTNL at the relevant time and were providing services to the Government Bungalows in the area.

¶26

In view of the above, no directions can be issued to the respondents to provide the petitioners in situ rehabilitation or alternate accommodation, in terms of the aforesaid Policy. However, it is clarified that the petitioners shall not be removed except in accordance with law.

¶27

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is disposed of.

¶28

Order dasti under signatures of the court master.

¶29

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶30

MARCH 11, 2019/RK

Ram Shankar and Ors. v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Shankar and Ors. v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.L Sansi Ex. Constable Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dalvinder Singh Sodhi Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Bimla Sodhi Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Singhal Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Sanjeev Ruhil and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Dr. A.K. Bhardwaj Vs the Secretary, Government of India & Ors.

Chhaya Gaur Vs Punjab National Bank

Joginder Singh Vs Northern Railways & Ors.

Tejinder Kaur Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mohd Javed and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Advaith Biofuels Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rayka Mihir Gandabhai Vs Union Public Service Commission and Anr.

Sanjeev Ramniwas Goyal Vs National Internet Exchange of India and Anr.

M/S Moets Catering Services through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra Vs Dr. Ambedkar International Center and Anr.