residing in Jhuggies, are provided with alternative housing. The policy upholds the mandate of providing adequate safeguards to residents of Jhuggie clusters before they are evicted from the land they occupy. Notably, the DDA Policy of 2004 mandates that once a JJ cluster is identified for relocation, a survey of the clusters must be conducted in a prescribed format, along with photographs. In cases where a Jhuggie is found locked during the survey, a two-day notice should be pasted at the door to verify the occupants, followed by a re-survey of such locked Jhuggies before any demolition action is undertaken. This clearly indicates that the scope of the policy hinges on the aspect of determining the eligibility for lawful relocation and rehabilitation of the JJ clusters dwellers to another place, in order to prevent their displacement without alternative accommodation. 15. Keeping the above core objectives in view, the impugned decision, which primarily relies on purported newspaper reports, the demolition report, and photographs, is unsustainable. There is no substantial or credible evidence to refute the Petitioners’ residential status. The DDA’s argument revolves around the allegations that the Petitioners were mere squatters engaged in the illegal activities of storage of plastic and similar hazardous materials thereby rendering them ineligible for rehabilitation. However, this argument overlooks the fundamental purpose of the DDA Policy, 2004, which was specifically framed to provide relief even to those residing on public lands without authorization, provided they fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria. The term ‘squatters’ in this context does not automatically imply disqualification unless it is established that the occupants were engaged solely in commercial activities, without any residential use of the premises. Notwithstanding, the policy explicitly contemplates rehabilitation
