Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For Rehabilitation Of Slum Dwellers Evicted From Jhuggis Near Delhi's Mathura Road

In a plea against demolition of a Jhuggi Jhopri (JJ) cluster near Mathura Road, Delhi, at a time when demolition activities in the national capital were banned subject to exceptions, the Supreme Court on Friday(February 2) issued notice to the respondent-authorities.

The Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar was hearing a challenge to a Delhi High Court order, whereby a plea against the demolition of the JJ Cluster near Mathura road and prayer for rehabilitation of the concerned slum dwellers was dismissed.

To recapitulate the issue, one Vikalp Welfare Society, acting on behalf of slum dwellers, had moved the High Court against a demolition action undertaken at the JJ Cluster near Mathura. It was stated that under an order of the Commission on Air Quality Management (CAQM), the compliance of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) III - which restricted construction and demolition activities in NCR (subject to exceptions) at the relevant time - was exempted for the Land &Development Office, which carried out demolition at the said JJ Cluster (Khasra No. 484 near DPS Mathura Road, New Delhi).

The Society argued that the purported grant of exemption by CAQM was an abuse of power and the exemption order was never shown to it or to the court. Further, the dwellers not having been rehabilitated in terms of the High Court's decision in Ajay Maken v. Union of India & Ors., the demolition of notified and protected JJs was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also the petitioner's case that in a Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) survey of 2012, 212 families were recognized as residing in the subject JJ Cluster.

On behalf of the Union, it was urged that the demolition action was permissible, as the exemption by CAQM had been granted in respect of GRAP-III restriction.

After hearing the parties, the High Court observed that in a contempt proceeding initiated before it in another matter, the Union was directed to take appropriate steps for the removal of unauthorized encroachment in the subject area. If the authorities did not take requisite action, the land-owning Department and its officers could face contempt action. It was further considered that the slum dwellers did not produce electricity bills as proof of residence.

First, a Single Judge denied relief to the slum dwellers and then a Division Bench. A review petition filed for recall of the Division Bench's order was also not entertained.

Accordingly, the instant petition was filed before the top court by the present petitioner, a man who lost his home in the demolition drive. He claims that as a consequence of the L&DO's action, hundreds of children, women and men were left on the streets in chilly winter, contrary to right to dignity and shelter.

The petition asserts that GRAP III exemptions pertained to “very narrow classes of projects” and there was no provision for CAQM to grant any individual exemption. "What is the tearing hurry in demolishing listed and surveyed Jhuggi Jhopris?", the petitioner asks.

He claims that his jhuggi was covered by the Delhi government's rehabilitation policy and was demolished while a demolition ban was in force. The petitioner adds that in garb of compliance with judicial orders, he alongwith others has been rendered homeless due to the action of the authorities.

Essentially, grievances underlying the present case are three-fold: first, that CAQM should not have granted exemption to L&DO, second, that L&DO order fixed demolition action within 3 days of passing of its order, and third, that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court.

Yesterday, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed the point of procedural non-compliance of demolition orders before the top court. It was urged that the contempt orders, in furtherance of which demolition act was purportedly taken, contemplated action "in accordance with law", which included the GRAC-III (and its exceptions).

"A mindless exemption has been granted, the challenge in this writ petition was to that exemption", he said.

After hearing the submissions, the court directed for notice to be issued.

Background

It was when the jhuggi dwellers in the subject area approached the Delhi High Court for directions towards rehabilitation that the question as to whether the concerned Cluster was in existence before January 01, 2006 fell before a Single Bench. The answer to this question was to decide whether the government was obligated to provide alternative accommodation to the jhuggi dwellers under its Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy of 2017.

The Single Judge decided against the jhuggi dwellers, relying on a satellite image of 2006, which indicated that no JJ Cluster existed on the subject land at the time. The judge took note of the fact that a writ petition was filed before the court for removal of JJs on the subject land, which was disposed of in 2011 with a direction to the Union to take action against the unauthorized construction in the area. Later, a contempt petition was moved alleging non-compliance of the court's order, pursuant whereto, the Central Public Works Department started constructing a boundary wall on the subject land.

The Single Judge's order was appealed before the Division Bench, but the same was also decided against the jhuggi dwellers in 2019. The court noted that the Single Judge had recorded a finding of fact, which was not perverse. Considering that the jhuggi dwellers had not annexed any document showing electricity connection for their dwellings, the court concluded that they must not have been residing in the subject land.

After four years of passing of the Division Bench's order, a review petition was filed by certain applicants who claimed that they were not party to the proceedings before the Single Judge, or before the Division Bench. The same was also dismissed, noting that the applicants approached the court after 4 years, in response to an action sought to be taken by the authorities for demolition of unauthorized construction, as well as that the petitioner in the earlier proceedings (ie Vikalp Welfare Society) had acted in a representative capacity for the slum dwellers.

Case Title: Ram Pal v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 49378/2023