Encroachers Cannot Stall Public Projects Citing Rehabilitation
The Delhi High Court has held that encroachers cannot assert a right to remain on public land simply because their rehabilitation requests are pending.
The judgment comes in response to petitions challenging the Delhi Development Authority’s (DDA) demolition of jhuggi-jhopri clusters at Bhoomiheen Camp. A bench headed by Justice Dharmesh Sharma stated that allowing encroachers to remain during pending rehabilitation claims would unjustifiably delay vital public infrastructure projects. The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, clarifying that although the State must provide notice before eviction, it is not obliged to offer alternative housing in every case. The petitioners, long-time residents of Bhoomiheen Camp, argued that the DDA’s demolition drive violated their constitutional right to shelter and bypassed the 2015 Policy mandating in-situ rehabilitation of eligible dwellers. They claimed they received no notice or opportunity to participate in the mandated survey.
Countering these claims, the DDA maintained that it fully complied with the 2015 Policy. It stated that a third-party agency, SPYM, conducted a video-documented survey using mobile apps and deployed multiple teams to collect data. Public notices were issued, and a facilitation camp was held. Owing to the pandemic, the deadline to file claims was extended to September 2020, with demolition notices finally issued in April 2023. The Court found the DDA’s procedures adequate and noted that jhuggis at Bhoomiheen Camp bore arbitrary, self-assigned numbers, complicating survey tracking. It observed that the petitioners neither attended the survey nor approached the Claims and Objections Redressal Committee. Most petitions were filed only after demolition notices were issued. Rejecting allegations of procedural lapses, the Court said there was no justification to halt or reopen the now-concluded ₹835.88 crore rehabilitation process. It ruled that the petitioners lacked any vested or constitutional right to rehabilitation and that eligibility under policy frameworks does not equate to legal entitlement.
The judgment reinforces the precedence of orderly urban development and public interest over unregulated occupation of government land, even amid claims of long-standing settlement.
