Disposed¶25

Naima Khatun & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC13 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/7258/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC; Jasmeet Singh J; WP(C) 7258/2026; Article 226 Constitution; jhuggi dweller Sector A6 Narela; jhuggi demolition; DDA possession; alternative plot/business place; representation speaking order; 6 weeks deadline; petition disposed 13.07.2026; petitioner Naima Khatun; respondent Delhi Development Authority.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions: DDA to consider the petitioner's prayer for alternative place in accordance with its extant rules, regulations and policy, treating the writ petition as a representation to be disposed of by a speaking order within six weeks, with the order communicated to petitioner's counsel. No mandamus directing continued occupation of the displaced place was issued. ¶25

Naima Khatun & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a jhuggi dweller whose jhuggis were demolished and whose possession was taken over by DDA, should be allowed to continue residence/business at the displaced place until an alternative place of business and shelter is provided.

¶14

Court's answer

The petitioner's prayer for an alternative place may be considered by DDA in accordance with its extant rules, regulations and policy.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

DDA shall treat the writ petition as a representation and dispose of it by a speaking order, a copy of which shall be communicated to the petitioner's counsel.

¶23

Key takeaways

The consideration and disposal of the representation shall be done expeditiously and not later than 6 weeks.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J.) — W.P.(C) 7258/2026, decided 13.07.2026. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Naima Khatun, a Jhuggi Dweller at Sector A6, Narela, whose jhuggis had been demolished and possession taken over by the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA'), seeking permission to continue at the displaced place until an alternative place of business and shelter is provided. The Court did not adjudicate the legality of the demolition or possession (counsel for DDA stated the land belonged to DDA and possession was taken in accordance with law). Directing humanitarian handling of the prayer, the Court ordered DDA to consider the writ petition as a representation in accordance with its extant rules, regulations and policy, dispose of it by a speaking order within six weeks, and communicate the order to the petitioner's counsel. Petition disposed of.

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7258/2026

¶4

NAIMA KHATUN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Neelam Akhtar along with Mr. Kumar Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr.Sanjay Katyal, SC with Mr. Nitish kumar Danda Adv. for DDA

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R

¶11

¶12

13.07.2026

¶13

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶14

“I. Therefore it is prayed that the petitioner writ is mandamus be allowed by directing the respondent to allow to the petitioner to continue in that displaced place and also be directed to continue their business in the displaced place. And further

¶15

II. Be directed till the alternative place of business and shelter is provided the petitioner be allowed to continue or the petitioner be given permission to make representation to the respondent to provide to alternative business place till the if the place is so required to the respondent….”

¶16

The brief facts are that the petitioner is stated to be Jhuggi Dweller at Sector A6, Narela and the Jhuggis have been demolished and possession has been taken over by Delhi Development Authority (“ DDA ”). Since, the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 18/07/2026 at 11:52:31

¶19

possession is taken over by DDA, the petitioner seek alternative place.

¶20

For the said reasons, issue notice.

¶21

Mr. Takiar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/DDA, and states that the area in question belongs to DDA and in accordance with law, DDA has taken possession. Hence, the petition does not survive.

¶22

However, I am of the view that the petitioner’s prayer for alternative place may be consider by DDA in accordance with their extant rules, regulations and policy.

¶23

For the said reasons, it is directed that the respondent/DDA shall consider the writ petition as a representation and dispose it of by a speaking order. The copy of the order shall be communicated to the learned counsel for the petitioner at the address mentioned in the writ petition.

¶24

The needful shall be done expeditiously and not later than 6 weeks from today.

¶25

With these directions, the present petition is disposed of.

¶26

Later after passing of the order, Ms. Neelam Akhtar along with Mr. Kumar, learned counsels for the petitioner, appeared and they have been apprised of the order passed.

¶27

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶28

JULY 13, 2026/JK

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 18/07/2026 at 11:52:31

Naima Khatun & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naima Khatun & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maninder Singh Vs Bank of India

Dinesh Solanki & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Suresh Singhal Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Prabhjit Singh Sarna Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Shah Caters Vs Archeological Survey of India

Cloud 9 Prjoects Private Limited Vs Anubhav Gupta & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raja Rajeshwari Institute of Medical Sciences Girls Vs Union of India and Ors.

Maninder Singh Vs Bank of India

Mr Tilak Raj Bhagat & Anr. Vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Shreyansh Jarwal through His Legal Guardian Mr Vijay Singh Meena Vs Joint Seat Allocation Authority Josaa & Ors.

Farhanex Tradex Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sd College of Pharmacy Vs Pharmacy Council of India

Badal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi