Disposed¶41

Dhaneshwar Yadav and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC19 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/15389/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 15389/2023 (dec. 19.03.2026, Delhi HC, Kaurav J.): jhuggi demolition, WZ-6 Rajouri Garden; Clause 2(a)(i), Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015; DUSIB Act 2010; compensation Rs.1,00,000/- per family sought; Court directs petitioners to apply to DUSIB (R-3) for decision per law; petition disposed; petitioners' citations: Chameli Singh (1996) 2 SCC 549; Shantistar Builders (1990) 1 SCC 520.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to the petitioners to file an application before Respondent No. 3, DUSIB, to be decided in accordance with law with due expedition, and liberty to take further legal recourse if the grievance is not mitigated; the prayers for suspension of demolition, survey/rehabilitation, shelter and compensation were not directly granted. ¶41

Dhaneshwar Yadav and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, jhuggi residents of WZ-6, Rajouri Garden (resident for approximately 30-35 years), are entitled to survey and rehabilitation/relocation under Clause 2(a)(i) of the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, following the alleged demolition without prior notice or alternate housing. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The Court observed that no application had been filed by the petitioners before the concerned authorities under the 2015 Policy and the DUSIB Act.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Instead of keeping the petition pending, the Court directed the petitioners to file an appropriate application before Respondent No. 3, namely the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB).

¶38

Key takeaways

If the petitioners file such application, it is to be decided in accordance with law with due expedition.ratio¶39
Liberty was granted to the petitioners to take up appropriate recourse of law if their grievance is not mitigated.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.) | W.P.(C) 15389/2023, decided 19.03.2026 | Petitioners, jhuggi dwellers of WZ-6, Rajouri Garden (stated residence of 30-35 years), sought suspension of demolition, survey and rehabilitation per Clause 2(a)(i) of the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (framed under the DUSIB Act, 2010), immediate shelter, and Rs.1,00,000/- compensation per affected family, alleging demolition without prior notice or hearing; they relied on Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549 and Shantistar Builders v. N.K. Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520. The Court observed that no application had been filed under the 2015 Policy/DUSIB Act, and instead of adjudicating, directed the petitioners to apply to Respondent No. 3, DUSIB, with the application to be decided in accordance with law expeditiously, and reserved liberty to pursue other legal remedies; petition disposed of. The cited precedents were relied on by the petitioners only and were not adjudicated upon by the Court.

¶1

$~34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 15389/2023

¶4

Date of decision: 19.03.2026

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

DHANESHWAR YADAV AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶7

Through: Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Mr. Kamal Kant Tripathi, Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocates.

¶8

versus

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

¶10

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Bhagwan Sawrup Shukla CGSC with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for R-UOI.

¶11

Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi, with Ms. Minu kumari, Advocates for R-2. Mr Farman Ali CGSC, Ms Usha Jamnal, Advocate. Ms. Kritika Gupta, Ms. Vidushi Singhania, Advs for R-DDA.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶14

J U D G E M E N T

¶15

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶16

The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

¶17

“(a) Direct the respondents to suspend further the demolition (if any) are surveyed and rehabilitated as per the DUSIB Policy;

¶18

(b) Direct respondent no.3, DUSIB to conduct a survey of the affected residents and rehabilitate them in accordance with the Delhi JJ slum

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:27.03.2026 18:32:19

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶23

Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015;

¶24

(c) Direct the respondents to put on record the survey of the residents/ Petitioners in accordance with the DUSIB policy of 2015;

¶25

(d) Direct respondents to immediately provide shelter to the Petitioners with proper sanitation, clean water and hygienic conditions;

¶26

(e) Direct the Respondents to pay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation to the each of the affected family for the loss and suffering due to demolition and inaction on the part of the respondents.

¶27

(f) Any other order deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”

¶28

The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioners are residents of Jhuggis developed at WZ-6, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. They are stated to be engaged in critical economic activities in the surrounding areas, working as drivers, vegetable vendors, auto-rickshaw drivers, taxi drivers, etc., and have been residing at the above-mentioned address for the past 30–35 years.

¶29

The petitioners submit that they have filed the present petition for relief against the arbitrary demolition of their Jhuggis, carried out in violation of Clause 2(a)(i) of the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 („2015 Policy‟) framed under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 („DUSIB Act‟). The relevant clause is reproduced below:

¶30

“Clause 2(a)(i): Who is eligible for rehabilitation or relocation JJ Bastis which have come up before 01.01.2006 shall not be removed (as per NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011) without providing them alternate housing. Jhuggis which have come up in such JJ Bastis before 01.01.2015 shall not be demolished

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶34

Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:27.03.2026 18:32:19

¶35

without providing alternate housing; (this is in supersession of the earlier cut-off date of 04.06.2009 as notified in the guidelines of 2013).”

¶36

It is also submitted that the demolition was carried out without prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners place reliance on Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.¹ ; Shantistar Builders v. N.K. Totame² ; and other judgments in support of their claim.

¶37

However, it appears that no application has been filed by the petitioners before the concerned authorities, as per the 2015 Policy and the DUSIB Act.

¶38

The Court, therefore, instead of keeping this petition pending, deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the Respondent No. 3 namely, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board.

¶39