Dismissed

Girja Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Sept 2024LPA/891/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging notices to remove an unauthorised ironing-work structure on public land near Moti Bagh. The Division Bench held the structure was not a jhuggi or protected street vendor stall, dismissed the appeal, but permitted an application to DUSIB.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an application with DUSIB, to be considered in accordance with law; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Girja Devi Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~42

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 891/2024, CM APPL. 51435/2024 & CM APPL. 51436/2024

¶4

GIRJA DEVI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Ms. Ashmita Singh, Mr. Pratyush Jain, Mr. Aditya N. Prasad, Ms. Poorvi, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC, Civil, GNCTD with Mr. Aabid, Mr. Mayank, Ms. Salonee, Mr. Krishna, Advs for R-1. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Ms. Aakriti Garg, Advs. for DUSIB. Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC.

¶7

% Date of Decision: 04^th September, 2024

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶12

Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 2^nd September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 12180/2024 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant herein.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant preferred the subject petition against notices dated 13^th July, 2024, 24^th July, 2024 and

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:05.09.2024 18:26:02

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

LPA 891/2024

¶18

letter dated 27^th August, 2024 (‘Impugned Notices’), issued by the Central Public Works Department (“CPWD”)/ Respondent No.2 whereby the Appellant was directed to remove her temporary structure-cum-workplace situated near A-57, Moti Bagh - I, New Delhi – 110021.

¶19

He states that the Appellant structure is a slum, which has been in existence since 1960s, wherein the father-in-law of the Appellant and subsequent generations have been providing ironing services to the residents of the locality. He states that therefore all the cut off dates are met as per the ‘Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015’ (“DUSIB Policy”). He further states that as per the website of the Delhi Urban Shelter Board (DUSIB), a total of 675 Slum Jhopri Clusters (JJ Clusters) have been identified in Delhi and one of the identified JJ Cluster is at Shanker Camp behind C-II Flats, Moti Bagh near Vidhan Chand Vidyalaya. He states that the Appellant’s slum is less than 1 Km away from the said identified JJ Cluster and therefore, the Petitioner’s structure should be included in the said JJ Cluster in terms of proviso to Section 2(g) of DUSIB Act, 2010.

¶20

He also states that the Appellant is covered under the definition of ‘street vendor’ provided in Section 2(l) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 [‘Street Vendors Act’]. He states that until the Town Vending Committee under the aforesaid Street Vendors Act undertakes a survey of all the street vendors under its jurisdiction, the removal of any street vendors is not permitted. He, however, clarifies that he is confining his prayer for rehabilitation and not for stay of demolition.

¶21

This Court has perused the impugned order and is in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that the structure in question had been

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:05.09.2024 18:26:02

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

LPA 891/2024

¶26

unlawfully constructed by the Appellant on public land for the purposes of providing ironing services. Mere long-standing use of public land, even for a substantial period, does not confer any legal rights upon the Appellant to continue to occupy it.

¶27

This Court is further of the view that the structure does not meet the criteria for protection under the DUSIB Act or the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, as it does not qualify as a ‘ jhuggi ’ or a ‘ jhuggi jhopri basti’ that would warrant Appellant’s rehabilitation or relocation.

¶28

The appellant’s argument that the appellant’s structure is a part of an identified JJ Cluster situated nearly a kilometer away is a ‘stretch’ and untenable in law. Further, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the temporary structure qualifies for protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The Act does not extend protection to such permanent structures built without proper authorization or in contravention of land use norms.

¶29

Accordingly, the present appeal being bereft of merits is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to file an application with the DUSIB which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶30

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶32

SEPTEMBER 4, 2024

¶33

N.Khanna

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:05.09.2024 18:26:02

¶36

Page 3 of 3

¶37

LPA 891/2024

Girja Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girja Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anju Devi & Ors. Vs Union of India through the Secretary & Ors.

M/S R K Food Products Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vikramjeet Singh Mann Vs University Grants Commission & Ors.

Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs Mrs Kum Kum Kannodia

Prince Gupta Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Anil Kumar Garg Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.