Recently, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “Although the government of Delhi has sought to make efforts to rehabilitate jhuggi dwellers on paper, the ground reality is far from desirable.” The high court reiterated that the “right to housing” is a part and parcel of the “right to livelihood, health, food, clean drinking water, sewerage and transport facilities” and such facilities must be provided to individuals who will be relocated to Geeta Colony, Dwarka, including litigant Keshaw Sanyasi Gawo Shewasharam.

While hearing a plea filed by Shewasharam, Delhi High Court said the trust was established for maintaining a Shiv Temple and Gaushala located at Shiv Hanuman Mandir on Bhairon Road. The trust reportedly looked after “ailing, old and abandoned cows”, and apart from the Shiv Temple and cow shelter, the said premises was also home to certain jhuggi (slum) dwellers.

The trust was aggrieved by a January 28 order of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) directing the occupants to vacate the premises within 15 days. The notice stated that their failure to do so would result in their removal and that they would be “relocated at the shelter home at Dwarka, Geeta Colony where they could reside for a period of three months”.

The trust approaches Delhi High Court before a single judge seeking a quashing of the eviction note and seeking direction to prohibit the Delhi government and DUSIB from carrying out demolition in the said premises.

The single judge bench in its February 10 order found that the premises in question do not come within the jhuggi cluster which has been notified as per the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The judge held that the occupants of the premises were not entitled to protection from demolition and that since the notice had provided for an alternate accommodation, “no orders were needed to be passed”. The single judge had directed the respondents to allot an alternate accommodation for the cow shelter within a week, and further said that the alternate cow shelter would be exempt from the maximum stay period of three months.

The division bench perused the DUSIB Act read with the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Relocation Policy, 2015, and said that the same indicates that in order to get the benefit of the policy, a ‘jhuggi jhopri basti’ cluster defined under the Act ought to have been in existence prior to January 1, 2006, and the person should have constructed his jhuggi within the cluster prior to January 1, 2015.

“It appears that in case a jhuggi was not notified under the Act, the same did not exist before 01.01.2006, and hence, individuals residing at such jhuggis cannot claim in-situ rehabilitation. The statement that the subject premises are near a notified cluster by itself is not sufficient to attract the DUSIB Policy, 2015 for the purpose of rehabilitation,” the high court observed.

It further said that if the trust says that they are within the cluster, then it has to take remedies under civil law and substantiate its case by leading evidence and a writ petition would not be the appropriate remedy in such a case. “The appellant has not placed anything on record to contradict the position of the respondent that the jhuggis at the said premises did not exist prior to 01.01.2006. Furthermore, in terms of the policy, the respondent has already provided alternate housing to the individuals affected by the impugned notice as well,” the court noted.

Perusing the eviction notice, the high court said that it is “simply directed towards jhuggi dwellers”. “Nonetheless, it has already been directed that alternate shelter should be provided to cows residing at the said premises. This alternate shelter is not for the limited period of three months, as directed by the Ld. Single Judge. In light of this, this court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Single Judge…,” the high court said dismissing the plea.