Rehabilitation through alternative housing does not constitute prohibited punitive action under the Uttarakhand Special Provisions Act.

The petitioner, representing residents of the Kathbangla Basti situated along the Rispana River in Dehradun, challenged an eviction notice dated 21.11.2025 and a subsequent notice affixed on 15.02.2026

The petitioner argued that the residents have occupied the area since before 11.03.2016, making them eligible for protection under the Uttarakhand Special Provisions for Urban Local Bodies and Authorities Act, 2018, which provides a statutory moratorium on evictions until 2027

The petitioner alleged the state acted with undue haste, failed to conduct a socio-economic survey, and provided inadequate rehabilitation in a floodplain zone

Conversely, the State maintained that the eviction was initiated to comply with judicial directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) regarding riverbed encroachments, and that residents were being relocated to government-constructed flats

Section 4 of the Uttarakhand Special Provisions for Urban Local Bodies and Authorities Act, 2018, which mandates that status quo be maintained for unauthorized constructions existing as of 11.03.2016 and suspends punitive actions for a period now extended to nine years (until 2027)

Uttarakhand Reforms, Regularisation, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Prevention of Encroachment of the Slums located in Urban Local Bodies of the State Act, 2016, which defines "Slums" and establishes the framework for planned rehabilitation

Judicial mandates from State of Uttarakhand & Ors. vs. Niranjan Bagchi & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 1440 of 2025) and NGT directions in Niranjan Bagchi vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors (O.A. No. 417 of 2022) regarding environmental protection and riverbed encroachments

The Court reasoned that the primary objective of the 2018 Act is the rehabilitation of slum dwellers rather than the mere preservation of unauthorized encroachments

In applying the law to the facts, the Court observed that the petitioners were residing on a dry riverbed, which poses a significant risk to life during flash floods or natural calamities

The Court found that because the State was providing suitable flats for relocation, the move could not be classified as "punitive action" under Section 4 of the 2018 Act; rather, it was a proactive measure to achieve the statutory goal of rehabilitation

The Court determined that the State was effectively balancing its statutory obligations with the judicial mandates of the Supreme Court and NGT to clear riverbeds while ensuring the residents’ right to shelter through alternate housing

The Court concluded that the writ petition was devoid of merit because the allotment of flats satisfied the protective intent of the welfare legislation

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and all connected petitions, upholding the eviction and rehabilitation process