Rehabilitation entitlement for project-affected persons is governed strictly by executive policy criteria and availability of land.

In February 2010, the government issued notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire land in Punjabi Basti, Nangloi, for constructing a Road Over Bridge (ROB) and Road Under Bridge (RUB)

Petitioners challenged the acquisition in W.P.(C) 1852/2010 but entered a compromise, agreeing to withdraw their challenge if provided with alternative plots

The High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and DUSIB to facilitate rehabilitation on a 1700 sqm plot

Subsequently, NDMC notified a "Final Criterion" on 11.12.2013 and an eligibility list on 26.02.2014

Various batches of petitioners (owners, tenants, stall holders) challenged the criteria, the cutoff date for conversion charges (10.04.2012), and the decision to allot shops in a complex rather than individual plots

While the project was 95% complete, work on these stretches remained stalled due to the litigation

1. Whether the NDMC's final eligibility criteria dated 11.12.2013 and the decision to allot shops in a shopping complex instead of individual plots were arbitrary or illegal

2. Whether tenants and unauthorized transferees of licensed thadas (stalls) have a vested right to rehabilitation under the scheme

3. Whether the cutoff date of 10.04.2012 for the payment of commercial conversion charges was arbitrary

4. Whether the respondent could dispossess the petitioners before the completion of the rehabilitation process

The court applied the "Relocation and Rehabilitation Policy for Owners of Urban Properties" (2011) of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which limits eligibility to recorded owners and specifically excludes tenants

It relied on the principle of "Eminent Domain," noting that individual ownership must yield to the larger public good

The court cited Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, which held that rehabilitation is a matter of discretion and feasibility, not a hard-and-fast rule, and courts should not interfere unless the policy is palpably arbitrary

It further applied Rohit Raj Chhabra v. UOI, establishing that executive authorities have the leeway to fix cutoff dates based on financial and administrative considerations without judicial interference unless the date is "capricious"

The court reasoned that since the available rehabilitation land (1200 sqm usable) was limited, the NDMC’s decision to build a vertical shopping complex through an Association was a "fair and equitable" distribution of scarce resources, as individual plots were not feasible

The court rejected the tenants' claims, noting that the Rehabilitation Policy was a humanitarian measure evolved during litigation—not a statutory right—and thus could validly exclude non-owners

Regarding the cutoff date for conversion charges, the court found it was not "picked out from a hat" but corresponded with the date the Division Bench ordered the verification of documents in the original writ

The court emphasized that the project was of significant public interest and that the acquisition process had attained finality once the petitioners withdrew their initial challenge in exchange for rehabilitation

It held that tenants and illegal transferees of thadas are ineligible for rehabilitation

The court directed all occupants to vacate the acquired land within three months

It ordered the NDMC to treat two specific petitions (W.P.(C) 320/2016 and 3644/2023) as representations due to specific factual disputes regarding document submission

The court directed the Commissioner of MCD to constitute a three-member committee to supervise the construction of the Local Shopping Centre by the Welfare Association and directed the filing of monthly progress reports