Delhi HC allows eviction of 717 jhuggi dwellers but orders dignified relocation, essential amenities and six-month monitoring at Savda Ghevra

The appellants were residents of Bhai Ram Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony, notified Jhuggi Jhopri Bastis under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (“DUSIB Act”).

Approximately 717 dwelling units were proposed to be removed and their occupants relocated to flats at DUSIB Colony, Savda Ghevra, Delhi.

The Land & Development Office (“L&DO”) issued rehabilitation and eviction notices dated 29 October 2025, stating that eligible occupants would be relocated and that ineligible occupants were required to vacate.

During the pending writ proceedings, the High-Powered Committee constituted pursuant to an earlier order of the Court approved priority rehabilitation of the three bastis at Savda Ghevra, and DUSIB formally approved the relocation scheme on 9 April 2026.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions but directed compliance with the DUSIB Policy and Protocol, implementation of rehabilitation assurances, and vacation of the bastis within fifteen days.

In appeal, the appellants challenged both the legality of the eviction process and the adequacy of rehabilitation facilities, particularly because Savda Ghevra was approximately 40–45 kilometres from their existing residences.

Whether the eviction and relocation process violated the DUSIB Act, the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and the Draft Protocol for Removal of Jhuggis and JJ Bastis in Delhi?

Whether relocation of the appellants to Savda Ghevra, beyond the five-kilometre preference under the 2015 Policy, was legally permissible?

Whether the proposed rehabilitation was meaningful and consistent with the appellants’ constitutional rights to shelter, livelihood, dignity, education, healthcare, transport, water, sanitation and other civic amenities under Article 21?

What directions were necessary to ensure effective and dignified rehabilitation of the displaced residents?

The Court applied Sections 2(f), 2(g), 9, 10, 11, 12 and 21 of the DUSIB Act, 2010, which define jhuggis and JJ bastis, confer survey powers upon DUSIB, authorise schemes for removal and resettlement, permit redevelopment and rehabilitation, and empower the Board to prepare housing schemes.

Under the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, DUSIB is the nodal agency; in-situ rehabilitation is preferred, ordinarily within five kilometres, but relocation beyond five kilometres is permissible in exceptional circumstances with prior DUSIB approval.

The Draft Protocol requires coordination among the land-owning agency and DUSIB, proper surveys, provision of civic facilities, transportation of belongings and safeguards during eviction.

Relying on Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi, the Court held that relocation must be meaningful and must not leave JJ dwellers worse off; the right to shelter includes livelihood, health, education, transport, water, sanitation and dignity.

Relying on Ajay Maken v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the right to adequate housing is a bundle of rights and that eligible JJ dwellers should not be treated merely as illegal encroachers.

The Court also relied on Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India for the principle that Article 21 protects human dignity and the right to live a quality life.

The Court held that the relocation beyond five kilometres did not violate the 2015 Policy because the Policy expressly permits relocation beyond that distance in exceptional circumstances with prior DUSIB approval; no suitable alternative site was available within five kilometres, and DUSIB formally approved Savda Ghevra on 9 April 2026.

The objection that the process was initiated by L&DO rather than DUSIB was rejected because the Central Government, as land-owning agency, could initiate removal, while DUSIB had considered and approved the proposal; Section 10 of the DUSIB Act permits Central Government action and requires prior consent where Central Government land is involved.

The Court also found no fatal defect in the joint survey conducted by L&DO and DDA, since all dwelling units—irrespective of individual eligibility—were ultimately offered rehabilitation without beneficiary charges, causing no prejudice.

Nor did the absence of prior in-principle DUSIB approval invalidate the survey, as the Draft Protocol permits a survey before such approval in special circumstances.

However, the Court emphasised that physical relocation alone would not satisfy Article 21.

In light of the respondents’ affidavits and undertakings concerning transport, schools, electricity, water, sewerage, healthcare, security, LPG connections and travel facilities, it directed strict compliance and constituted a Monitoring Committee to supervise implementation and ensure that rehabilitation was dignified and meaningful.

The Court upheld the legality of the eviction and relocation process and directed that the appellants be rehabilitated at DUSIB Colony, Savda Ghevra.

The appellants were granted six weeks to vacate their existing dwelling units and shift to the allotted accommodation, after which eviction could be carried out with police assistance if necessary.

DUSIB was directed to facilitate transportation of household belongings.

The respondents were bound to honour all undertakings and directions concerning amenities, including transport, education, water, sanitation, electricity, healthcare and security.

A seven-member Monitoring Committee, chaired by a retired Delhi Higher Judicial Services officer, was constituted for six months, extendable by two months, with authority to issue directions to concerned agencies and supervise rehabilitation.

The appeals and pending applications were disposed of without costs.