Right to Rehabilitation Under DUSIB Act Contingent Upon Specific Notification and Statutory Compliance of JJ Clusters

The Petitioner challenged an Order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the Estate Officer, Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB). The order rejected the Petitioner’s claim over premises at 24 Qtrs., Jhuggi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., and ordered eviction

The Petitioner contended that her dwelling unit formed part of a notified "Jhuggi Jhopri Cluster" (JJ Cluster) and sought protection from coercive action and rehabilitation under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Act, 2010

The Petitioner relied on documents like a ration card and Aadhaar card to prove long-term occupation and argued that separation from a recognized cluster by a ten-metre road should not disqualify her from benefits

1. Whether the Petitioner’s dwelling unit satisfies the statutory definition of a "jhuggi" or "jhuggi jhopri basti" under Sections 2(f) and 2(g) of the DUSIB Act so as to entitle her to rehabilitation

2. Whether an independent structure separated by a public road can be deemed an "extension or adjunct" of a notified cluster under the proviso to Section 2(g)

3. Whether the principles of rehabilitation laid down in Ajay Maken v. Union of India dispense with the statutory requirement of a notification under the DUSIB Act

Section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act, 2010, which defines a "jhuggi jhopri basti" as a group of at least fifty households existing as of 31.03.2002 and notified by the Board

Vaishali (Minor) v. Union of India, which held that statutory protection is unavailable without such notification

Dinesh Singh v. DDA, establishing that a cluster must be among the 675 clusters identified by DUSIB to qualify for rehabilitation

Aftab Alam v. DUSIB, which interpreted "nearby areas" in the proviso to Section 2(g) to mean only contiguous or adjacent extensions, not structures separated by major roads

Ajay Maken v. Union of India requires a determination of eligibility but does not override the statutory criteria of the DUSIB Act

The court found that the subject premises consisted of only three illegal structures, failing the statutory requirement of fifty households under Section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act

The court rejected the argument for "attachment" to a nearby notified cluster under the proviso to Section 2(g), reasoning that the subject unit was separated by a substantial public road, meaning it was neither contiguous nor an adjunct to a recognized basti

Regarding the Petitioner's reliance on Ajay Maken, the court clarified that while the law protects dwellers from arbitrary eviction, it does not grant a right to rehabilitation if the structure does not meet the legal definition of a notified JJ cluster

The documents presented (Aadhaar, Election ID) only proved occupation, not a legal right to rehabilitation under the specific DUSIB policy

The court upheld the Estate Officer's finding that the Petitioner was a "mere trespasser" on government land with no claim to adverse possession

The court held that Ajay Maken does not dispense with statutory prerequisites under the DUSIB Act

Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the Estate Officer's order under Articles 226/227, finding no jurisdictional error or perversity. The Writ Petition was dismissed