01Facts
The Petitioners, residents of ‘Bhai Ram Camp’, ‘DID Camp’, and ‘Masjid Camp’ near the Race Course area in Delhi, challenged eviction notices issued by the Land and Development Office (L&DO).
pp. 1-2Initially, the petitioners were asked to vacate without alternative accommodation.
p. 3, para 2Subsequently, the respondents decided to relocate them to Savda Ghevra under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Policy, 2015.
p. 3, para 2The Petitioners contended the relocation site is distant, lacks basic amenities, and disrupts their livelihoods and children's education.
pp. 5, para 9.3-9.4The Union of India argued the land is required for "strategic purposes" to strengthen defense infrastructure and that substantial financial concessions regarding rehabilitation costs have been provided.
p. 7, para 10.5 · p. 22, para 4102Issues
i.1. Whether the impugned eviction and relocation action violates the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
p. 8, para 12ii.2. Whether the impugned action is in contravention of established law, specifically the DUSIB Policy, Protocol, and Supreme Court directions regarding demolition.
p. 8, para 1203Law Applied
Article 21 of the Constitution, interpreting the right to life to include the right to livelihood and shelter as established in Olga Tellis v. BMC and Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Kaimalal Totame.
pp. 9, para 16-17Sudama Singh v. Govt. of Delhi and Ajay Maken v. Union of India regarding the State's obligation to provide basic amenities during relocation.
p. 11, para 20‘Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Policy, 2015’ and the ‘DUSIB Protocol’ governing the procedural steps for survey and rehabilitation.
pp. 11-12Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which limits interference in policy decisions involving strategic interests.
p. 23, para 44Provisions in the judgment · 4
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 Section 2
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Section 312Section 313Section 314
04Reasoning
The Court noted that while Article 21 protects the right to shelter, it does not create an absolute bar against eviction if a reasonable procedure is followed.
p. 9, para 16The Court found that although the respondents deviated from strict DUSIB Protocol (e.g., surveys conducted by L&DO/DDA instead of DUSIB), no prejudice was caused as all petitioners were ultimately deemed eligible for rehabilitation.
pp. 15-16, para 33-35The Court accepted the Union's argument that in-situ rehabilitation was impossible due to the lack of available land in the immediate vicinity.
p. 18, para 39The Court held that the "strategic location" adjoining an Air Force Station and the need to secure defense infrastructure constituted valid national security grounds for eviction, a domain where judicial interference is restricted.
pp. 22-23, para 43-45To mitigate the impact on the petitioners, the Court emphasized DUSIB's obligation under Clause 6D(vii) of the Protocol to ensure transport, health, and education facilities at the new site.
pp. 11-12, para 22-2305Holding
Relocation for national security purposes is valid provided rehabilitation measures are secured.
p. 25, para 48The Court disposed of the petitions by upholding the eviction but directing the respondents to ensure full compliance with the DUSIB Policy and Protocol regarding amenities (education, transport, water, etc.) at Savda Ghevra.
p. 25, para 49.1The Court recorded the Union’s undertaking to bear the ‘beneficiary contribution’ of ₹1,12,000 per dweller.
p. 26, para 49.2The Petitioners were granted 15 days to vacate the present camps and take possession of the allotted flats, failing which the respondents may proceed with eviction in accordance with law.
p. 26, para 49.3Original Court PDF
Khushnuma Khan & Ors.vsUnion Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
