Full Judgment Text
$-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
+ W.P.(C) 17239/2025, CM APPL. 14197/2026, CM APPL.
14556/2026, CM APPL. 28102/2026
MRS. KHUSHNUMA KHAN AND OTHERS
.....PETITIONERS
(Through: Mr Pankaj Sinha, Ms Garima, Mr. Sunil Tiwari, Advocates.)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
....RESPONDENTS
(Through: Mr.Chetan Sharma ASG, Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb CGSC With
Ms.Nasreen Khatoon G.P for Union Of India and Mr. Muhammad Aamir
Khan and Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman, Mr Piyush Gupta CGSC, Mr Atishay
Jain, Mr. Vishesh Goel for UOI. Mr. Shrey Sharawat, SPC, along with Mr.
Himanshu Sihag, Advocates for R-1 and 2
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Richa Dhawan, Ms. Yashita Jain (Advocates) with
Sh. P. K. Jha (Principal Director) and Pranav Siroha (LA) for DUSIB.
Ms. Meenakshi Advocate for DUSIB.)
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2943/2026 and CM APPL. 14195/2026
RAKESH BANSAL AND OTHERS …PETITIONERS
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
1
(Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Sr. Adv., Mr. Javed and Ms. Kavya Dauk,
Advocates .)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
(Through: Mr.Chetan Sharma ASG, Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb CGSC With
Ms.Nasreen Khatoon G.P for Union Of India and Mr. Muhammad Aamir
Khan and Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman, Mr Piyush Gupta CGSC, Mr Atishay
Jain, Mr. Vishesh Goel for UOI. Mr. Shrey Sharawat, SPC along with Mr.
Himanshu Sihag, Advocates for R-1 and 2
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Richa Dhawan, Ms. Yashita Jain (Advocates) with
Sh. P. K. Jha (Principal Director) and Pranav Siroha (LA) for DUSIB.
Ms. Meenakshi Advocate for DUSIB.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Reserved on: 27.04.2026
Pronounced on: 11.05.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
INDEX
I. CASE HISTORY .........................................................................................3
II. SUBMISSONS ..........................................................................................5
III. ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................7
A. VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION ........................................................................................8
B. VIOLATION OF LAW/GOVT. POLICY .......................................... 12
(i) Supreme Court directions in Re: Directions .................................... 12
(ii) Government Policy ......................................................................... 14
III. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 25
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
2
The petitioners in both these petitions are residents of ‘Bhai Ram
Camp’, ‘DID Camp’, and ‘Masjid Camp’ ( present camps ). The petitioners
are aggrieved by the respondents’ action insofar as they seek to evict them
from the present camps and relocate them to alternate accommodation at
Savda Ghevra, Delhi ( alternate accommodation ).
2. W.P. (C) 17239/2025 (Khushnuma Khan’s petition) is by Mrs.
Khushnuma Khan and twenty-eight other petitioners, whereas, W.P. (C)
2943/2026 (Rakesh Bansal’s petition) is by Mr. Rakesh Bansal and three
hundred and twenty-eight other petitioners. The lead matter, Kushnuma
Khan’s petition, was filed earlier, seeking the setting aside of eviction notice
dated 29.10.2025, whereby, the petitioners were directed to vacate the
present camps without being offered any alternative accommodation.
Subsequent to the filing of the petition, however, the respondents have
decided to relocate the petitioners to the alternate accommodation and have
issued notices dated 19.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 directing the petitioners to
obtain allotment letters for the flats at the alternate accommodation. In
Rakesh Bansal’s petition, this subsequent decision of the respondents is
assailed.
I. CASE HISTORY
3. On 13.11.2025, the Court issued notice to the respondents and also
directed that the petitioners shall not be evicted without adhering to the
procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Re: Directions in
1
the matter of demolition of structures .
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
3
4. The authorities have, thereafter, decided to relocate inhabitants of the
present camps to the alternate accommodation, as approved on 29.01.2026 at
th
its 4 Meeting by the High Powered Committee (HPC) constituted as per the
directions of a Division Bench of this Court in Court on its own motion v.
2
Union of India and Ors . The HPC was constituted to facilitate proper
utilisation of housing units constructed under various Government-schemes.
5. Challenging notices issued pursuant to this decision, Rakesh Bansal
and others filed their petition. Khushnuma Khan and others filed C.M. Appl
14197/2026 seeking directions to the respondents to refrain from taking any
coercive action.
6. Both matters were listed before the predecessor Bench on 03.03.2026
and the petitioners submitted that they were being directed by the
respondents to vacate their homes by 06.03.2026, without complying with
the requirements as per Re: Directions . Considering the circumstances and
the short time period for vacating, the Court extended the deadline up to
11.03.2026 and listed the matter before this Bench on 10.03.2026. It was
also observed that considering alternate accommodation was being offered,
prima facie, the eviction didn’t seem to be in contravention of the directions.
7. The parties were, thereafter, heard on 16.03.2026, 18.03.2026,
20.03.2026, 24.03.2026, and 30.03.2026. On the last date, the matter was
reserved for judgment. The respondents then filed applications to bring on
record, the minutes of DUSIB’s meeting dated 09.04.2026, whereby formal
approval was accorded for relocation of the residents of the present camp to
the alternate accommodation, as well as notice dated 08.04.2026 for the said
2
Order dated 18.09.2023 in W.P. (C) 9470/2022
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
4
meeting. The said applications were listed on 20.04.2026 and 27.04.2026.
Arguments were further heard and the cases were re-reserved on 27.04.2026.
8. At the outset, it is seen that the petitioners have not opposed the
application for taking on record the aforesaid documents. They, however,
contend that the documents would not have any effect on the outcome of the
petition. Even otherwise, the documents sought to be brought on record
relate to subsequent developments and they are being filed without any
delay on the part of the respondents. Further, C.M. Appl No. 25701/2026
filed by the respondents in Rakesh Bansal’s petition for the said purpose had
been allowed by the Court vide order dated 20.04.2026. In view thereof,
even I.A. 28103/2026 in Khushnuma Khan’s petition deserves to be
allowed.
II. SUBMISSONS
9. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned senior counsel, and Mr. Pankaj Sinha,
learned counsel, have advanced the following submissions on behalf of the
petitioners:
9.1. The rehabilitation of the petitioners is in contravention of the
applicable policy insofar as several procedural requirements have not been
adhered to.
9.2. The proposed alternate accommodation is situated far away from the
present camps without specifying any reason for the same. As per the
applicable policy, rehabilitation ought to be in-situ and only in exceptional
circumstances, it may be beyond a 5 kilometer radius of the present camps.
9.3. There is no urgency shown by the respondents for taking the
impugned action, despite the livelihood of the petitioners being put in great
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
5
danger. They submit that the petitioners are working as drivers or domestic
workers in the vicinity of the present camps. If they are shifted beyond a
reasonable distance, the same would definitely affect their right of
livelihood.
9.4. Education and health facilities are not available at the proposed site
of shifting. The same would lead to drop out from schools amongst the
children of the petitioners. Further, there is no sewage treatment at the
proposed site of shifting.
9.5. Rehabilitation is not an act of charity, but the petitioner’s right, under
the Constitution of India.
9.6. In any event, the respondents are obliged to comply with the
procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Re: Directions in
the matter of demolition of structures. In terms thereof, each occupant is
entitled to a specific show cause notice, reasonable time to submit a reply,
personal hearing, and a reasoned order prior to eviction.
10. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General, and Mr.
Syed Abdul Haseeb and Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, learned counsel, made the
following submissions on behalf of the respondents:
10.1. The petitioners have now been deemed eligible for rehabilitation at
the alternate accommodation. Therefore, the petitions are rendered
infructuous. A joint survey had been conducted in the year 2024 by Land
and Development Office ( L&DO ) and the Delhi Development Authority
( DDA ). Upon assessment, five-hundred and eighteen dwellers were found to
be eligible and one hundred and eighty-four dwellers ineligible for
relocation as per the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Policy, 2015 framed
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
6
by DUSIB ( DUSIB Policy ). However, subsequently, it was decided that all
the residents of the present camps would be rehabilitated.
10.2. Pursuant to this decision, the impugned rehabilitation notice dated
19.02.2026 was pasted on the walls of the respective jhuggis over a period
of two days, i.e., 19.02.2026 and 20.02.2026. Help desks were also set up at
the present camps to enable dwellers to raise grievances over the course of
these two days. The policy requirements with respect to financial
contribution of the petitioners have been eased out substantially and the
same would be covered by the Union.
10.3. Some residents of the present camps have accepted allotment letters,
while some have even taken possession of the flats and have applied for
electricity meters. Further, the alternate accommodation has a sewer line,
water line, MCD Dhulao Ghar, and well developed parks and roads.
10.4. The decision to relocate the petitioners to the alternate
accommodation was taken with the approval of the HPC which was
constituted for the purpose of overseeing the allocation of housing units
under various Government Schemes. Subsequently, formal approval of
DUSIB has also been obtained.
10.5. The decision to evict the residents of the present camps have been
taken considering the strategic location and with a view to strengthen
defence infrastructure.
III. ANALYSIS
11. The case of the petitioners revolves around the argument that the
impugned action is in violation of their right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. They also contend that the respondents have not
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
7
followed the procedure as per the applicable DUSIB policy and the ‘Draft
Protocol for removal of Jhuggis and JJ Bastis in Delhi’ ( DUSIB Protocol ).
12. Therefore, the following questions arise for consideration of the
Court. Whether the impugned action is violative of the petitioners’
fundamental rights, and whether the impugned action is in contravention of
law/Government policy.
A. VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION
13. The petitioners’ case is that their forefathers have been living in the
present camps and had established their lives around this location. They earn
their livelihood by working as domestic labourers and in other blue-collar
jobs in nearby places and their children are also studying in nearby
educational institutions. According to them, the alternate accommodation is
far away from their workplaces and schools and therefore, would negatively
impact their right to life under Article 21.
14. In response to this contention the respondents submitted that the
following amenities are available at the alternate accommodation as on date:
“A. Sewer line: Already laid inside EWS Housing at Savda Ghewra and
temporary connected with the Septic Tank. Sewerage Treatment plant (S.T.P.) is
under construction.
B. Water line: Already laid inside EWS Housing at Savda Ghewra and UGR
(Under Ground Reservoir) is also functional and connected with the DJB water
line.
C. MCD Dhalaoghar: Also available in this housing area.
D. Well-developed parks and roads: Already available.”
15. However, the aforesaid available amenities do not specifically address
the grievances raised by the petitioners with respect to their livelihood and
educational prospects. The petitioners have a fundamental right to adequate
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
8
and reasonable shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
respondents, therefore, ought to ensure that the necessary amenities are
made available to the petitioners at the alternate accommodation.
16. It is settled law that the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India does not connote mere animal existence but envisages
a right to lead life with dignity. The Supreme Court, in Olga Tellis and Ors.
3
v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. , has held that the right to
livelihood is intricately connected to the right to life under Article 21, and
has held as follows :
“Two conclusions emerge from this discussion: one, that the right to life
which is conferred by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and
two, that it is established that if the petitioners are evicted from their
dwellings, they will be deprived of their livelihood. But the Constitution
does not put an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal
liberty. By Article 21, such deprivation has to be according to
procedure established by law. In the instant case, the law which allows
the deprivation of the right conferred by Article 21 is the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, the relevant provisions of which are
contained in Sections 312(1),313(1)(a) and 314.”
4
17. Further, in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Kaimalal Totame , the
Supreme Court has highlighted the need for adequate and suitable shelter, in
the context of Article 21 of the Constitution. The relevant portion of the
:
decision is extracted below, for reference
“9. Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three
food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any
civilized society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the
right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable
accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal
and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it
is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a
3
1986 AIR 180,
4
(1990) 1 SCC 520
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
9
suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect
physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring
fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the
child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be
assured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable
home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched
house or a mud-built fireproof accommodation."
5
18. Further, in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. , the Supreme Court
upheld the acquisition of land by the Government for developing housing
units for the poor. The landowners had challenged the said action on the
ground that they depended on their land for their livelihood, and therefore,
the impugned action was violative of their fundamental rights. The Court
held that the acquisition was justified considering that it was for providing
housing to the poor in recognition of their right to shelter.
19. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab
6
Khan , the Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether the
respondents, who were pavement dwellers, were liable to ejectment action
and whether the principles of natural justice had to be followed in the
process. The Court answered the said questions as follows:
“"It would...be clear that though no person has a right to encroach and
erect structures or otherwise on footpath, pavement or public streets or
any other place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose, the State
has the Constitutional duty to provide adequate facilities and
opportunities by distributing its wealth and resources for settlement of
life and erection of shelter over their heads to make the right to life
meaningful, effective and fruitful. It would be the duty of the State to
provide right to shelter to the poor and indigent weaker sections of the
society in fulfilment of the Constitutional objectives.”
5
(1996) 2 SCC 549
6
(1997) 11 SCC 121
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
10
20. The aforesaid decisions were discussed in detail by a Division Bench
7
of this Court in Sudama Singh and Ors. v. Government of Delhi and Anr. ,
pursuant to which, the DUSIB Policy and DUSIB Protocol were framed. In
8
Ajay Maken v. Union of India , this Court, upon considering the aforesaid
decisions, held as under :
“141. The right to housing is a bundle of rights not limited to a bare
shelter over one„s head. It includes the right to livelihood, right to
health, right to education and right to food, including right to clean
drinking water, sewerage and transport facilities.
142. The law explained by the Supreme Court in several of its decisions
discussed hereinbefore and the decision in Sudama Singh discourage a
narrow view of the dweller in a JJ basti or jhuggi as an illegal occupant
without rights. They acknowledge that the right to adequate housing is a
right to access several facets that preserve the capability of a person to
enjoy the freedom to live in the city. They recognise such persons as
rights bearers whose full panoply of constitutional guarantees require
recognition, protection and enforcement. That is the running theme of
the DUSIB Act and the 2015 Policy.”
21. A conspectus of the aforesaid decisions indicates that the right to
shelter and right to livelihood, both of which are guaranteed under Article
21, are intricately connected. Lack of adequate shelter is bound to affect a
person’s livelihood. In case the alternate accommodation is inadequate with
respect to basic amenities such as transportation services, clean and hygienic
water, availability of educational institutions, etc., the petitioners' right to
life would be prejudicially affected.
22. At this point, it would be relevant to examine certain obligations on
DUSIB as per its Protocol. Clause 6D(vii) thereof, is extracted below, for
reference :
“6. STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF
JHUGGIS AND JJ
7
2010 SCC OnLine Del 612
8
2019:DHC:1616-DB
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
11
BASTIS
D. POST SURVEY STEPS
(vii) In order to provide suitable facilities at the allotted site, DUSIB
will make request to the concerned authorities, as under:
(a) Directorate of Education, GNCTD/ MCD will be requested to
make arrangement for admission of the wards of the jhuggi dwellers
in the nearby schools.
(b) Directorate of Health Services, GNCTD, will be requested to
setup a dispensary/ Mohalla Clinic in the vicinity of the flats, if not
already available.
(c) Request will be made to open Kendriya Bhandar/Co-operative
store to cater to the basic daily needs of the jhuggi dwellers, if not
available in the vicinity.
(d) Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) will be requested to make
arrangements of DTC buses.
(e) DUSIB shall facilitate the availability of drinking water and
sewerage facilities in the flats to be allotted.”
23. It is, therefore, seen that the respondents are bound to, as per their
own policy, ensure minimal impact of the rehabilitation on the lives of the
persons who are rehabilitated. If the aforesaid requirements are complied
with, the petitioners' grievances would be mitigated to a great extent. The
Supreme Court, in Olga Tellis and Ors. , has held that the rights under
Article 21 may be abraded by procedure established by law which is
reasonable. Considering the aforesaid obligations placed on the respondents,
the rights of the petitioners may even be secured instead of being affected by
giving effect to the said provision.
B. VIOLATION OF LAW/GOVT. POLICY
24. The submissions on behalf of the petitioners on this question are two-
fold. They contend that the impugned action is in contravention of the
Supreme Court directions in Re: Directions, as well as DUSIB Policy.
(i) Supreme Court directions in Re: Directions
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
12
25. At the outset, it is seen that the Supreme Court directions are
inapplicable in cases of removal of unauthorized constructions in public
places. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below, for
reference:
"91. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be
applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place
such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body
or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for
demolition made by a Court of law."
26. As per the petitioners, they are not 'unauthorised occupants' of the
land in question, considering that their families had settled therein, much
prior even to Indian independence. However, the petitioners herein, are
residents of ' jhuggi jhopri bastis' , and are sought to be evicted in exercise of
the authority conferred on DUSIB under the Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board Act, 2010 ( DUSIB Act ). Under Section 2(f) thereof, the
term 'jhuggi' is defined thus:
"(f) "jhuggi" means a structure whether temporary or pucca, of
whatever material made, with the following characteristics, namely:-
(i) it is built for residential purpose:
(ii) its location is not in conformity with the land use of the Delhi
Master Plan:
(iii) it is not duly authorized by the local authority having
jurisdiction; and
iv) it is included in a jhuggi jhopribasti declared as such by the
Board, by notification;
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Therefore, it is seen that the petitioners are in fact, unauthorized
occupants of the land in question. Furthermore, it is apposite to note that the
scope of the petitions wherein the Supreme Court Directions were passed.
The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below, for reference:
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
13
"12. The scope of the present petitions is limited. The question that
will have to be considered is, as to whether the properties of the
persons, who are accused of committing certain crimes or for that
matter even convicted for commission of criminal offences, can be
demolished without following the due process of law or not?"
28. The impugned action herein is not in furtherance of any accusation of
the commission of crimes against the petitioners, but merely for the purpose
of clearing the land in question of unauthorized occupants, to be used for
strategic/public purposes. Therefore, the said directions would be
.
inapplicable in the present petitions
(ii) Government Policy
29. At the outset, the petitioners point out that the impugned action has
been initiated at the instance of L&DO. According to them, the present
camps are not located on land owned by L&DO, but in fact by the Indian
Army and Indian Air Force. They place reliance on Annexure P-6 from the
compilation of documents filed on 18.03.2025 by the petitioners, which is,
purportedly, a list of JJ Clusters as per the records of DUSIB. Learned
counsel for the petitioners takes the Court through entries no. 480, 481, and
482 in the said list to indicate that the ‘land owning agencies’ are the Indian
Army and Indian Air Force respectively.
30. L&DO, in its supplementary affidavit dated 27.03.2026, has
categorically stated that the land in question belongs to the Union under the
ownership of L&DO, whereas, the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force are
currently, only in occupation of the land. The relevant portion of the said
:
affidavit is extracted below, for reference
“2. That, at the outset, it is most respectfully submitted that the three
Jhuggi Jhopri (JJ) clusters in question, namely Bhai Ram Camp, Masjid
Camp, and DID Camp, are situated on Central Government land which
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
14
is under the ownership of Respondent No.2 i.e. Land & Development
Office (L&DO), Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of
India.
3. That the entire area of Bhai Ram Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Camp
is entirely under the administrative control and ownership of the L&DO.
The contention that the subject lands are owned by the Army
Headquarters and/or Air Force Headquarters is factually incorrect. It is
submitted that the land currently under occupation of the Army/Air Force
in the vicinity is also under the ownership of the Respondent No.2
(L&DO). That the Army/Air Force are lessees/allottees of the said land,
and the same has been allotted by the Respondent No.2 (L&DO).
4. Without prejudice to above made submissions, it is pertinent to
mention that the said jhuggi clusters in question are not situated within
the leased/occupied boundaries of the Army/defence establishments but
are on the land directly under the ownership and control of the
Respondent No.2. That this supplementary affidavit has been filed to
clarify and put the above position beyond any doubt as directed by this
Hon'ble Court.”
31. So far as Annexure P-5 is concerned, its authenticity is questionable.
The document comprises simply an unsigned and undated list of JJ Clusters
purportedly within DUSIB’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the said document
cannot form the basis of a prima facie opinion on who is the land-owning
agency, specifically in view of the express stand taken by the respondents.
32. The petitioners have pointed out from the material on record that the
respondents have not strictly adhered to the procedure mandated in the
DUSIB Protocol insofar as the joint survey for identification of juggis and
JJ Bastis, which are eligible for rehabilitation, was not conducted by
DUSIB, but by L&DO and DDA. According to them, the non-involvement
of DUSIB in the said exercise vitiates it entirely.
33. Clause 6 of the DUSIB Protocol specifies certain requirements to be
met with respect to determination of eligibility of jhuggis and JJ Bastis for
rehabilitation. These included DUSIB involvement in surveys, and
constitution of Claims and Objections Redressal Committee and Eligibility
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
15
Determination Committee for grievance redressal with respect to eligibility
for rehabilitation. All the petitioners herein, have been deemed eligible for
rehabilitation. Therefore, the aforenoted deficiencies have had no effect on
the petitioners.
34. Further, insofar as the objections with respect to the draw of lots for
allotment of flats being conducted in the absence of any representative of the
petitioners is concerned , the categorical stand of the respondents is that the
draw of lots was computerized. In view of the fact that the entire process
was automated, no prejudice could be deemed to have been caused to the
petitioners owing to the absence of their representative at the draw of lots.
35. Even otherwise, as per the stand taken by the respondents, one
hundred and ninety-two dwellers have accepted allotment letters and one
hundred and thirty-six dwellers have already taken possession of the allotted
flats. Further, many of them are stated to have even applied for electricity
meters in their allotted flats. Directing the respondents to re-conduct the
entire exercise would put the clock back on the persons who have accepted
the allotted flats and would be detrimental to their interests. The fact that the
entire exercise has attained fruition with respect to the aforesaid persons and
also the lack of any mala fides on the part of the respondents, operates
against interference with the impugned action.
36. It is settled law that Courts, while acting under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, exercise discretionary powers. They are required to
balance equities and take other relevant factors into consideration while
exercising the discretion. Reference may be made to the decision of the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
16
9
Supreme Court in Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan , wherein, the
Court has held as under :
43. Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy.
(See Champalal Binani v. CIT .) The High Court and consequently this
Court while exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal
order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the High
Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary
relief to the applicant. Furthermore, this Court exercised its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
which need not be exercised in a case where the impugned judgment is
found to be erroneous if by reason thereof substantial justice is being
done. [See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. v. Jay Container Services Co. (P)
Ltd.] Such a relief can be denied, inter alia, when it would be opposed
to public policy or in a case where quashing of an illegal order would
revive another illegal one. This Court also in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is entitled to pass such
order which will do complete justice to the parties.”
37. Considering that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by
reason of non-adherence in the strict sense of the term to the DUSIB
protocol since all the petitioners have been deemed eligible for
rehabilitation, the said deficiencies would not vitiate the entire exercise.
38. So far as the petitioners’ submissions with respect to the mandate of
in-situ rehabilitation as per DUSIB Policy are concerned, it is seen that
under Clause 2(iii) of the DUSIB Policy, which is extracted below, for
reference, rehabilitation may even be beyond 5 kilometer from the present
camps, with prior approval of DUSIB.
“2. Keeping the above principles in mind, GNCTD announces the
followingpolicy for rehabilitation and relocation of JJ basti
(iii) In-situ rehabilitation
DUSIB shall provide alternate accommodation to those living inJJ
Bastis, either on the same land or in the vicinity within a radius of 5 Km.
In case of exceptional circumstances, it can be even beyond 5 Km with
prior approval of the Board. The terms andconditions at which alternate
9
(2003) 6 SCC 545
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
17
accommodation will be providedand the eligibility conditions are being
separately notified.”
39. The respondents have maintained that in-situ rehabilitation is not
possible in the present case owing to lack of any alternative site and
available housing units for use as alternative accommodation in the vicinity
of the present camps, the decision to shift the petitioners to Savda Ghevra
has been taken. Paragraph no. 21 of the additional affidavit dated 27.03.2026
filed on behalf of DUSIB is extracted below, for reference :
“ 21. That it is humbly, and most respectfully, submitted that the
answering Respondent has no other available alternate site within a
radius of 5 kilometres for the rehabilitation of the JJ dwellers. That no
houses under the JNNURM project were constructed in any area within
the radius of 5 kms. That as such the JJ dwellers cannot be
relocated/rehabilitated in any alternative area.
Xxxx
th
28. That the Petitioner has placed on record the minutes of the 24
Board Meeting held on 12.10.2018, and made submissions o Agenda
Item No. 24/07. It is submitted that the Board of DUSIB had approved
housing projects for the rehabilitation of jhuggi dwellers on DUSIB
land at Bhalswa-Jahangirpuri, Sangam Park, Kasturba Niketan,
andDev-Nagar-Karol Bagh. However, the implementsation o9f the said
projects was aversely affectred due to the outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic, as well as the issuance of a Circular dated 31.12.2020 by the
Ministry o Hosuing and Urban Affairs ()MoHUA) By way of the said
Circular, pursuant to the decision of the Union Cabinet dated
08.07.2020, it was directed that all existing vacant and under
construction houses under JNNURM (Jawahar Nehru National Urban
renewal Mission) and RAY (Rajiv Awas Yojana) in States/Union
Territories shall be treated as Affordable Rental Housing Omplexes
(ARHCs) and shall be allotted only to eligible beneficiaries under the
ARHC scheme. ”
40. Further, the decision to relocate the petitioners to Savda Ghevra has
been taken by the HPC constituted as per the directions of a Division Bench
of this Court in Court on its own motion . The Court had directed the
constitution of the HPC to streamline the process of house allotment to
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
18
eligible beneficiaries under various Government schemes/programmes. The
relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below, for reference:
“9.1 A High-Powered Committee comprising of Secretary, MoHUA,
Government of India, Vice-Chairperson, Delhi Development Authority,
Chairperson, DUSIB, Principal Secretary, GNCTD, Chairperson, Delhi
Jal Board, and Chairperson, DSIIDC, shall be established immediately.
This Committee will be tasked with streamlining the process of house
allotment to eligible beneficiaries. Immediate steps should be taken for
allotment of 9,104 constructed flats to the eligible beneficiaries. The
Committee members shall be authorized to co-opt additional officers
from concerned governmental divisions or departments, as deemed
necessary to efficaciously implement the directives.”
(Emphasis supplied)
41. The stand taken by the respondents is reflected even in the notice
th
dated 08.04.2026 for 35 Meeting of DUSIB dated 09.04.2026, whereby,
formal approval for rehabilitation of the petitioners at the alternate
accommodation was accorded. The relevant portion of the said agenda as
per the notice is extracted below, for reference :
“AGENDA ITEM NO. 35/01
ALLOTMENT OF EWS FLATS AT SAVDA-GHEWRA TO 717 JHUGGI
DWELLERS OF BHAI RAM CAMP, MASJID CAMP AND DID CAMP
AND TO 221 JHUGGI DWELLERS OF ALREADY DEMOLISHED 04
JJ BASTIS LE. INDIRA CAMP, G-POINT, NEW SANJAY CAMP AND
RAJIV CAMP FOR THEIR REHABILITATION.
3. After November 2019, no JJ bastis could be rehabilitated due to
administrative reasons, Covid-19 and communication from MoHUA on
implementation of ARHCs (vide which all vacant and under
construction houses under JnNURM/RAY schemes deemed converted
into ARHCS only).
4. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.09.2023 passed in WPC
9470/2022 constituted a High Powered Committee (HPC) to chalk out a
clear and concise policy for the allocation and allotment of houses
addressing the concerns raised about ARHCs and the Rehabilitation
Policy, 2015 (Annexure-2). The HPC in its second meeting held on
09.05.2024 constituted sub-committee.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
19
xxxxx
6. On the recommendation of the third meeting of HPC held on
22.10.2024. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 passed in
WP(C) 9470/2022 and CM APPL 30607/2022 & 30608/2022, has
directed that upto 2500 JnNURM houses at Savda-Ghevra are allowed
to be used for Slum rehabilitation to the eligible JJ dwellers from the
recommended JJ bastis (Annexure-4).
xxxxx
8. L&DO, MOHUA, Gol vide letters dated 17.10.2025 requested for
reservation of 1000 flats at Savda-Ghevra for the three JJ Bastis namely
Bhai Ram camp, Masjid camp and DID camp at Race Course area for
urgent allotment of rehabilitation flats for time bound clearance of
Government Land near Race Course area as well as other JJ dwellers
for future rehabilitation. The name of above three JJ bastis exists in the
list of 675 identified JJ bastis with cluster code 503, 502 and 504
respectively Accordingly, L&DO, MoHUA, Gol has been requested vide
letter dated 14.11.2025 to deposit relocation charges amounting to Rs.
84,96,82,940/-against 1000 dwelling units at Savda-Ghevra. Further,
L&DO vide letter dated 03.02.2026 enclosed copy of sanction order for
Rs. 42,48,00,000/-and informed that remaining amount sanctioned for
this purpose shall be released to DUSIB shortly (Annexure-6 colly)
9. The eligibility determination in respect of JJ bastis Bhai Ram camp,
Masjid camp and DID camp has been carried out by the DDA Further,
L&DO has sent the files of eligible and in-eligible JJ households of
these three JJ bastis to DUSIB on 15.01.2026 and 12.02.2026
respectively.
10. The High Powered Committee (constituted by Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in WPC 9470/2022) in its 4th meeting held on 29.01.2026
interalia approved that eligible JJ dwellers of above three JJ Bastis
namely, Bhai Ram camp, Masjid camp and DID camp at Race Course
area may also be accommodated in the flats at Savda Ghevra, Delhi for
rehabilitation (Annexure-7).
11. L&DO further vide letter dated 12.02.2026 requested for allotment
of flats to 528 eligible and 258 ineligible (total 786) JJ beneficiaries
from aforesaid three JJ bastis. It has been further informed vide said
letter that the competent authority has already given in-principle
approval for allotment of flats to these ineligible jhuggi dwellers. It has
been requested to DUSIB that the allotment of flats for both the 528
eligible and 258 ineligible beneficiaries be taken up immediately
without any further delay to ensure timely clearance of the encroached
government land. (Annexure-8)
12. The Hon'ble Chairperson, DUSIB at Note #34 in the concerned e-
file по. 330515, has approved that as requested by MOHUA "the
allotment of flats for both the 528 eligible and 258 ineligible
beneficiaries be taken up immediately...", DUSIB may be directed to
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
20
take action for Computerised Draw of lots of 528 (eligible)+ 258
(ineligible) flats in co-ordination/assistance of DDA (Annexure-9)
13. In this regards, a letter dated 16.02.2026 was sent to Commissioner
(Systems), DDA regarding conducting draw of lots in r/o
eligible/ineligible JJ dwellers for the EWS Flats at Savda Ghevra, New
Delhi. L&DO has provided the list of 528 eligible and 189 in-eligible JJ
dwellers (excluding Non-residential jhuggi units viz exclusive
commercial/locked/Anganwadi/Mandir/Masjid/store/bathroom/Toilets
etc.) to DDA vide letter dated 17.02.2026 with copy to DUSIB. The
draw of lots was held on 17.02.2026 by DDA for allotment of 717 nos.
of flats at Savda Ghevra, New Delhi. (Annexure-10).14. Dy. L&DO vide
this office letter dated 20.02.2026 was informed that as per
rehabilitation policy, 2015, eligible JJ dweller is required to deposit
Rs.1,12,000/-(Rs 1000/- for SC) as beneficiary contribution and
Rs.30,000/- towards maintenance charges for 5 years within stipulated
time period. Being a time bound matter to rehabilitate the JJ dwellers
from 3 JJ bastis at Race Course area, it was requested to inform the
beneficiary contribution to be charged from ineligible JJ dwellers for
allotment of flats (Annexure-11).
15. Dy. L&DO vide letter dated 23.02.2026 informed that the balance
amount of Rs. 23,99,65,540 has already been released to DUSIB vide
sanction order dated 16.02.2026. It has also been informed tht the
ineligible JJ dwellers from three identified clusters (Bhai Ram camp,
Masjid camp and DID camp) are to be treated at par with eligible
dwellers for the purpose of this allotment. The release of Rs. 1,12,000/-
per dweller as the beneficiary contribution has been ensured by
MoHUA and DUSIB is requested to grant beneficiaries a period of
three months to deposit Rs. 30,000/-maintenance cost and to issue
allotment letters immediately to facilitate the completion of the
rehabilitation process (Annexure-12). The Hon'ble Chairperson, DUSIB
at note 74 dated 27.02.2026 in concerned e-file no 330515 has
approved the same (Annexure-13). The allotment letters are being
issued to the JJ dwellers and possession of allotted flats is being given
by the concerned Engineering Branch of DUSIB.
18, To comply with the directions of Hon'ble Court, proposal for
conducting draw of lots for 221 eligible JJ dwellers in respect of above
mentioned already demolished 04 JJ bastis and 295 eligible JJ dwellers
in respect of JJ basti Kushak Nalla (not removed) was placed before the
Hon'ble Chairperson, DUSIB.
19. The Hon'ble Chairperson, DUSIB vide note no. 87 dated 10.03.2026
in e-file no. 330515 has approved to conduct computerized draw of lots
for the eligible JJ dwellers of aforementioned 04 already demolished JJ
bastis. The decision w.r.t. ineligible JJ dwellers of already demolished
JJ bastis and JJ basti at Kushak Nalla, East Kidwai Nagar (not
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
21
removed) may be taken after finalization of 'New Rehabilitation Policy
(Annexure-14).
20 In view of above facts and circumstances in-situ rehabilitation is not
possible.
PROPOSAL: Ratification of following Agenda:
i. Allotment of EWS flats at Savda-Ghewra, Delhi to 717 nos. of JJ
dwellers including 528 eligible and 189 in-eligible out of 258 ineligible
beneficiaries (excluding non-residential jhuggi units) of the three JJ
bastis namely Bhai Ram camp, Masjid camp and DID camp at Race
Course area.
ii. The beneficiary contribution of Rs. 1,12,000/- per dweller to be
deposited in DUSIB by MoHUA, Govt. of India and the beneficiaries
may be granted a period of three months to deposit Rs. 30,000/- in
DUSIB account in respect of maintenance cost of the allotted flat in
respect of three JJ bastis namely Bhai Ram camp, Masjid camp and
DID camp at Race Course area.”
42. Therefore, it is seen that even the objection of the petitioners with
respect to lack of any formal approval by DUSIB for the impugned action,
has been addressed.
43. So far as the petitioners’ contention that the respondents have not
disclosed the specific reason for eviction from the present camps is
concerned, the respondents’ case is that the location of the present camps is
adjoining military installations and therefore, in order to strengthen defence
infrastructure, eviction is necessary. Paragraph no. 13 of the comprehensive
reply dated 19.03.2026 filed by the respondents is extracted below, for
reference:
“It is submitted that the rehabilitation and relocation ofthe jhuggi
dwellers has become essential due to the highly sensitive and strategic
location of the area. The JJ clusters lie in a protected zone, immediately
next to an operational Air Force Station. In the current global security
situation, which involves increased threats and the risk of conflict or
war—like conditions, the presence of unauthorized structures in this
sensitive area creates serious risks to national security, public safety, and
the protection of vital installations. Therefore, after careful
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
22
consideration, the Respondent has taken a decision to remove the
unauthorized structures, including resuming adjoining government lands
(such as the Race Course Club) in order to strengthen, and secure
defence infrastructure and other important public and security
purposes.”
44. The Supreme Court, in its decision in Ex-Armymen’s Protection
10
Sevices Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors ., examined the scope
of interference by Courts in policy decisions taken by the executive for
national security reasons, has held as follows :
“ 15 . It is difficult to define in exact terms as to what is “national
security”. However, the same would generally include socio-political
stability, territorial integrity, economic solidarity and strength,
ecological balance, cultural cohesiveness, external peace, etc.
16. What is in the interest of national security is not a question of
law. It is a matter of policy. It is not for the court to decide whether
something is in the interest of the State or not. It should be left to the
executive. To quote Lord Hoffman in Secy. of State for Home
Deptt. v. Rehman (AC p. 192C)
“… [in the matter] of national security is not a question of
law. It is a matter of judgment and policy. Under the
Constitution of the United Kingdom and most other countries,
decisions as to whether something is or is not in the interests of
national security are not a matter for judicial decision. They are
entrusted to the executive.”
17. Thus, in a situation of national security, a party cannot insist for the
strict observance of the principles of natural justice. In such cases, it is
the duty of the court to read into and provide for statutory exclusion, if
not expressly provided in the rules governing the field. Depending on
the facts of the particular case, it will however be open to the court to
satisfy itself whether there were justifiable facts, and in that regard, the
court is entitled to call for the files and see whether it is a case where
the interest of national security is involved. Once the State is of the
stand that the issue involves national security, the court shall not
disclose the reasons to the affected party.”
10
(2014) 5 SCC 409
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
23
45. The Court thus, finds that, considering contemporary geopolitical
events, national security concerns of the respondents satisfy as specific
reasons for eviction of the petitioners. The Court ought not to be too eager to
interfere with such executive policy decisions. Reference may be made to
the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Executive Pilots
11
Association & Anr. v. Air India Limited & Ors .
“5. The decision taken by the Ministry of Civil Aviation during the
pandemic was the domain of the Ministry and thereafter the impugned
Office Orders were brought into effect by the Respondent No.1. It is
established law that the Courts do not run governments and should not
interfere with policy decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and can only interfere in the decision-making process on grounds
of malafides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness. Courts cannot
examine relative merits of economic policies and cannot strike down a
Policy merely on the ground that another Policy would be fairer and
better.”
46. Further, it is seen that as per the respondents, the ‘beneficiary
contribution’ component that the petitioners would otherwise have had to
pay as per the DUSIB Policy have been substantially relaxed in the present
case, and the same will be borne by the Union (Ministry of Housing and
Urban Affairs). The petitioners have also been granted three months’ time
for depositing the maintenance charges. Paragraph 10 of the comprehensive
reply of the respondents is extracted below, for reference:
“That moreover, department has already released
Rs.66,47,65,540(Rs.@8,64,100 per flat) to DUSIB for the reservation of
flats at Savda Ghevra. While standard DUSIB policy requires each
beneficiary to pay a Rs. 1,2,000 contribution and a five-year maintenance
cost of $30,000, this has been modified. Vide letter dated 23.02.2026,
L&DO conveyed to the Pr. Director (Rehab), DUSIB, that ineligible
dwellers are to be treated at par with eligible ones and MoHUA will
cover Rs.1,12,000 beneficiary contributions. To further ease the
11
2023:DHC:4403-DB
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
24
transition, beneficiaries are granted a three-month time to deposit
330,000 maintenance charge, ensuring that immediate financial
requirements do not delay the relocation process.”
47. Therefore, the respondents have taken steps to minimize prejudicial
effects that the impugned action may have on the petitioners. This aspect
also requires to be duly considered by the Court when exercising its writ
jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
48. In view of the forgoing discussion, the following conclusions are
drawn by the Court:
48.1. The petitioners have fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These rights are intricately
connected to the fundamental right to life and any violation of one of them
would generally entail violation of all of them.
48.2. However, their mere eviction and rehabilitation at alternative
accommodation would not violate the said rights as long as the interests of
the petitioners are secured as per the mandate of DUSIB Policy and
Protocol.
48.3. The respondents have not strictly followed the procedure for eviction
and rehabilitation of the petitioners as per DUSIB Policy and Protocol.
However, the said deficiencies have not caused prejudice to the petitioners
and some have them have already been rectified.
49. In order to secure the interests of the petitioners, the Court finds it
appropriate to dispose of these petitions with the following directions:
49.1. The respondents shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the
DUSIB Policy and the DUSIB Protocol including with respect to securing
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
25
education, travel, water and sanitation facilities, etc. for the residents of the
alternate accommodation.
49.2. The respondents shall be bound by their undertaking with respect to
the relaxation of the beneficiary contribution under the DUSIB Policy.
49.3. The petitioners, who have not yet accepted allotment letters, shall
immediately obtain the same upon due verification of their documents, and
also take possession of the allotted flats. The petitioners were first served
eviction notices on 29.10.2025. Sufficient time has elapsed since then and
the petitioners have been aware of the subsequent developments that have
taken place during the pendency of these matters. In view thereof, the
petitioners shall vacate the present camps within fifteen days from today,
failing which, the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in
accordance with law.
49.4. The petitioners shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse,
including to file a fresh petition, in case the respondents fail to fulfil their
obligations as contained in paragraph no. 49.
50. Accordingly, petitions, along with pending applications, stand
disposed of.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 11, 2026
aks.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
14:59:06
26