Dismissed¶9

Rajendra Prasad v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC27 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/12220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jhuggi demolition; rehabilitation claim refused; notified Jhuggi Jhopdi Cluster; Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015; Para (2)(a)(iii) DUSIB Policy, 2015; vacation notices 28.08.2024 and 27.08.2024; encroachment on public street and back lanes; relied on W.P.(C) 15430/2023 Parminder Chadha v. MCD and W.P.(C) 10244/2018 K.C. Sharma v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.; prayers (a)-(c) infructuous; notice limited to prayer (d); petition dismissed, application disposed; Amit Bansal, J.; decided 27.04.2026; W.P.(C) 12220/2024.

What did the court decide?

None — the writ petition is dismissed and the pending application (CM APPL. 50855/2024) stands disposed of. ¶9

Rajendra Prasad Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ petition is dismissed and the pending application (CM APPL. 50855/2024) stands disposed of.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's Jhuggi formed part of the notified Jhuggi Jhopdi Cluster such that the petitioner was entitled to rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and the DUSIB Policy, 2015 (prayer (d) of the writ petition, the only relief adjudicated after prayers (a)-(c) became infructuous).

¶6

Court's answer

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner's Jhuggi was part of the notified Jhuggi Jhopdi Cluster or that the petitioner was entitled to rehabilitation.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The action taken against the petitioner's Jhuggi was in terms of this Court's own directions in W.P.(C) 15430/2023 and W.P.(C) 10244/2018, under which there was encroachment by the Jhuggi dwellers on the public street and back lanes of the property owners.

¶7

Key takeaways

The provision of rehabilitation in accordance with the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and Para (2) (a)(iii), DUSIB Policy, 2015 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner; consequently the relief sought in prayer (d) cannot be granted.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Bansal, J., order dated 27.04.2026) dismissed W.P.(C) 12220/2024 in which the petitioner, whose Jhuggi had already been demolished, claimed rehabilitation on the ground that his Jhuggi formed part of a notified Jhuggi Jhopdi Cluster. Prayers (a)-(c) had become infructuous at the first hearing on 02.09.2024 as demolition had already occurred, and notice was confined to prayer (d). The Court found nothing on record establishing that the Jhuggi was part of the notified Jhuggi Jhopdi Cluster or any entitlement to rehabilitation, and recorded that the Jhuggis stood on a public road and were removed pursuant to vacation notices dated 28.08.2024 and 27.08.2024 in implementation of this Court's directions in W.P.(C) 15430/2023 ('Parminder Chadha v. MCD') and W.P.(C) 10244/2018 ('K.C. Sharma v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.') regarding encroachment by Jhuggi dwellers on the public street and back lanes of property owners. On that basis the Court held that the rehabilitation provision of the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and Para (2) (a)(iii), DUSIB Policy, 2015 would not apply to the petitioner, refused prayer (d), dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending application.

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12220/2024 & CM APPL. 50855/2024

¶4

RAJENDRA PRASAD .....Petitioner Through: Advocate (appearance not given).

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh and Ms. Prapti Jain, Advocates for MCD. Mr. Anubhav Gupta, panel counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocate. Ms. Shobhana Takiar, standing counsel for DDA with Mr. Prateek Dhir and Ms. Razia, Advocates for DDA. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh and Mr. Aamir Faiyaz, Advocates for DUSIB.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶8

O R D E R % 27.04.2026

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

W.P.(C) 12220/2024

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:27:19

¶14

When the writ petition came up for hearing for the first time before this Court on 2^nd September, 2024, it was noted that prayers ‘a’ to ‘c’ have become infructuous in view of demolition action that has already been taken place.

¶15

Accordingly, notice was issued limited to prayer ‘d’ of the present writ petition.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Jhuggi of the

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

W.P.(C) 12220/2024

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:27:19

¶21

petitioner was a part of the notified Jhuggi Jhopdi Cluster , the petitioner is entitled to rehabilitation.

¶22

Per contra, counsel for the respondents have drawn attention of this Court to the two vacation notices dated 28^th August, 2024 and 27^th August, 2024 in terms of which the Jhuggis were on a public road and were removed pursuant to orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 15430/2023, titled ‘ Parminder Chadha v . MCD’ , and W.P.(C) 10244/2018, titled ‘ K.C. Sharma v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. ’ respectively.

¶23

There is nothing on record to show that the Jhuggi of the petitioner was a part of the notified Jhuggi Jhopdi Cluster and that the petitioner was entitled to rehabilitation. 7. The action taken against the petitioner’s Jhuggi was in terms of the directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 15430/2023 and W.P.(C) 10244/2018 that there was encroachment by the Jhuggi dwellers on the public street and back lanes of the property owners.

¶24

In view thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provision of rehabilitation in accordance with the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and Para (2) (a)(iii), DUSIB Policy, 2015 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. Hence, the relief sought in prayer ‘d’ cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶26

Pending application stands disposed of.

¶27

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶28

APRIL 27, 2026 Rzu

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

W.P.(C) 12220/2024

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:27:19

Rajendra Prasad v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Mohit Tiwari Vs University Grants Commission & Anr.

Sh Prashant Mudgal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Salvin Paul Vs Dr B.R. Ambedkar University and Ors.

Reliance India Realty Opportunities LLP & Anr. Vs Registrar of Companies, New Delhi and Haryana & Anr.

Sunil Goyal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Honeycool Hvac Industries LLP Vs Union of India & Ors.

Havells India Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Micro Coils and Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited Vs Ajay Kumar Singh

Rajan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Rohit Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Neeraj Kumar Jindal & Ors. Vs Shri Sanjeev Khirwar & Ors.

Hasim Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Anita Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.