The recent decision of the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court regarding the rehabilitation of jhuggi dwellers.
The Delhi High Court had ruled that dwellers of jhuggis located outside the list of recognized jhuggi clusters were not entitled to rehabilitation benefits under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act 2010.
Brief Facts:
The Appellants filed an appeal before the court after the dismissal of their writ petition challenging the eviction from Janta Colony in Delhi and seeking rehabilitation under the Delhi JJ Slum Rehabilitation & Relocation Policy, 2015. The Appellants, belonging to a backward community, had been residing on the land since 1992 and engaged in occupations as blacksmiths and rickshaw pullers.
On 20.09.2022, the authorities carried out a demolition drive without notice, rendering the Appellants homeless. The Appellants contended that they had documents proving their residence prior to 2006, making them eligible for rehabilitation under the 2015 Rehabilitation Policy. They sought recognition as a Jhuggi Jhopri basti under Section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act to claim the benefits of rehabilitation.
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that the phrase "nearby areas" in Section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act applies only to jhuggis attached to an identified JJ Basti before 01.01.2006. The Appellants' jhuggis, located 3 km from identified clusters, did not meet this criteria. Moreover, they could not prove that their cluster was included in the DUSIB's list of identified clusters. The court held that the grounds for seeking rehabilitation lacked merit. Aggrieved by the decision, they approach the Delhi High Court.
Decision of the High Court of Delhi:
The High Court had dismissed the petition, stating that "nearby areas" referred to jhuggis that are adjunct to or an extension of a recognized jhuggi cluster. Since the petitioners' jhuggis were situated more than 3 km away from the notified cluster, they couldn't be considered located in "nearby areas." Moreover, the petitioners failed to prove their existence prior to 2006, which was an essential criterion for receiving benefits under the 2015 Rehabilitation Policy.
The High Court's decision was in line with previous judgments that stated jhuggis not mentioned in the list of recognized clusters are not entitled to rehabilitation measures. Observations by the Delhi High Court:
- Interpretation of Section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act: The court examined Section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act, which defines "jhuggi jhopri basti." According to this provision, the DUSIB has the authority to declare a group of jhuggis as a "jhuggi jhopri basti" by issuing a notification. However, for such a declaration to be valid, certain conditions must be met, including the existence of at least fifty households as of January 1, 2006.
- Eligibility Criteria under the 2015 Rehabilitation Policy: The court highlighted the eligibility criteria laid down in the 2015 Rehabilitation Policy, which include the existence of a jhuggi basti before January 1, 2006, and the presence of individual jhuggis within the basti before January 1, 2015. These criteria are essential for jhuggi dwellers to qualify for rehabilitation benefits under the policy.
- Burden of Proof: The court emphasized that the burden of proving the fulfillment of eligibility criteria lies with the appellants. The court noted that the appellants have failed to provide sufficient evidence in the form of a notification under Section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act or other credible proof of inhabitation before the specified dates.
- Distinction from Identified Clusters: The court distinguished the present jhuggi cluster from the list of 675+82 clusters published by the DUSIB. Since the appellants' cluster is not part of the recognized clusters, they cannot claim the benefit of rehabilitation as directed in previous judgments.
Observations by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court Bench stated that, “We have examined the basis on which the High Court has decided to take into account the three kilometre distance to understand the coverage of “nearby areas”. We find no infirmity therein warranting our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution”.
Decision of the Supreme Court:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by the petitioners, thereby affirming the Delhi High Court's judgment, which held that the jhuggis in question were not eligible for rehabilitation benefits under the mentioned legal provisions.
Case Name: Manoj Kumar and others v Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal
Case No.: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).7393/2023
Advocates of the Petitioners: Ms. Anupradha Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiyas Kr, Adv. Ms. Amiy Shukla, AOR and Mr. Shakti Vardhan, Adv.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh AOR, Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mrs. Garima Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Omkar, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
