Mr. Musheer Zaidi, Advocate v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD

Judgment

1. This common judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned writ petitions, which have been preferred by a bunch of petitioners, either jointly or individually, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, thereby seeking common reliefs in the nature of directing respondent No.2/DDA1 to suspend any further demolition work and maintain status quo at the site, and desist from carrying out any physical eviction of the petitioners from their respective jhuggi jhopri clusters falling in Bhoomiheen Camp, Govind Puri, Kalkaji, New Delhi-

110019. The petitioners also seek a direction to respondent No.1/DUSIB2 to conduct a proper and comprehensive survey of the affected residents and to rehabilitate them in accordance with the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 20153. 2. The issues raised by the petitioners involve common questions of law arising from broadly similar facts and circumstances. It is an admitted position at the Bar, as submitted by the learned counsels for the respective parties, that the present matters pertain to the category where the petitioners were not found to be residing at the site in question at the time of the surveys purportedly conducted by DUSIB. The petitioners, instead of availing the remedy of 1 Delhi Development Authority 2 Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board 3 2015 Policy Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters submitting their respective claims before the Eligibility Determination Committee4, have directly approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions, challenging the action of DDA in proceeding with the demolition of their jhuggi jhopri structures. 3. For the purposes of discussion, W.P.(C) No. 6312/2023 titled Govinda v. Government of NCT of Delhi has been taken to be the lead case, and the averments and assertions made therein have been reproduced for reference. The particulars of each petitioner in the lead case, as well as those in the other connected matters, are set out in the accompanying Tabular Chart, annexed to this common judgment as ANNEXURE ‘A’. PART-‘A’

BACKGROUND 4. Briefly stated, W.P.(C) No. 6312/2023 has been filed jointly by 34 petitioners. The common case set up by the petitioners is that each of them, along with their respective family members, has been in possession and occupation of their jhuggi jhopri structures located at a place known as Bhoomiheen Camp, Govind Puri, Kalkaji, which is stated to have been in existence since the early 1990s. The petitioners claim to be migrants from the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, and other regions, and are stated to be engaged in occupations such as factory labour, work in local shops, domestic help, and other forms of menial employment. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that DDA, in an arbitrary and 4 EDC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters illegal manner, has proposed to demolish their jhuggi-jhopdis, which action they contend is contrary to the “2015 Policy”. The petitioners submit that the 2015 Policy mandates in-situ rehabilitation of eligible jhuggi dwellers and lays down detailed guidelines for determining eligibility for such rehabilitation. It is further submitted that the policy was framed with the objective of advancing the welfare of Economically Weaker Sections of society and is based on a rational criterion for providing alternate housing to eligible residents through State intervention. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that DUSIB has been entrusted with the role of the nodal agency for implementation of the 2015 Policy, which clearly stipulates that JJ Camps/Bastis5 that came into existence prior to 01.01.2006 shall not be demolished without providing alternate housing. Furthermore, in order to qualify for rehabilitation under toe 2015 Policy, the cut-off date for residence in the jhuggi is fixed as 01.01.2015. Referring to Part-B of the 2015 Policy, it is stated that a JJ Dweller is required to possess any one of the following 12 documents issued before 01.01.2015: • Passport • Rational Card with Photograph • Electricity Bill • Driving License • Identity Card/Smart Card with photographs issued by State/Central Government and/or its Autonomous 5 Jhuggi Jhopdis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters Bodies/Agencies like PSU/Local Bodies (except EPIC) • Passbook issued by Public Sector Banks/ Post Office with photograph • SC/ST/OBC Certificate issued by Competent Authority • Pension document with photograph such as Ex-Serviceman's Pension Book, Pension Payment Order, Ex- Serviceman widow/dependent certificate, old age pension order or widow pension order • Freedom Fighter Identity Card with passport • Certificate of physically handicapped with photograph issued by the Competent Authority • Health Insurance Scheme Smart card with photograph (Ministry of Labour Scheme) • Identity card with photograph issued in the name of the descendants of the slum dweller from a Government School or certificate with photograph issued by the Principal of a Government School mentioning therein that the descendants of JJ dweller is/was the student of the school.

7. It is further pointed out that Part B of the 2015 Policy additionally prescribes certain eligibility criteria, including that: (i) the name of the JJ dweller must appear in at least one of the voters’ lists of the years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015, as well as in the year of the survey; (ii) the name of the JJ dweller must be reflected in the joint survey conducted by respondent No. 1 and the concerned land-owning agency; and (iii) the JJ dweller must be in possession of any one of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters the twelve specified documents issued prior to 01.01.2015. Among these, the Ration Card with Photograph and the Electricity Bill are particularly emphasized. The 2015 policy also clarifies that where a different family, holding a separate ration card issued prior to

01.01.2015, resides on an upper floor of the same premises, such family shall also be considered eligible for allotment of a separate dwelling unit. It is submitted that although DDA has constituted the EDC, the petitioners have been deliberately excluded from the survey list, despite having submitted all relevant documents that, in their view, establish their eligibility for alternate housing under Part B of the 2015 Policy. 8. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that DUSIB has failed to discharge its statutory obligations, and that the surveys at their respective sites were conducted in blatant violation of the ‘Protocol 2015’ by an obscure, outsourced agency appointed by DDA. It is further contended that DDA, by its purported actions of threatening demolition and physical eviction from their jhuggis- jhopdis/dwelling units, is infringing upon the petitioners’ fundamental right to shelter, which is an essential component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and is also protected under Article 19(1)(g). It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking relief. STAND OF THE DUSIB 9. DUSIB, in its counter affidavit filed through Mr. Ajay Kumar Datta, Deputy Director (Rehabilitation), dated 06.01.2023, has not provided a para-wise reply to the allegations made in W.P.(C) No. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters 6312/2023, instead reserving its right to file a detailed counter reply at a later stage. In its preliminary stand, DUSIB states that it is a statutory Board constituted under the provisions of the DUSIB Act, 2010, an enactment of the Legislative Assembly of the NCT of Delhi, and is empowered to prepare schemes for the removal of jhuggi-jhopri camps and the resettlement of their residents. However, DUSIB relies on the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the DUSIB Act to assert that the land in question, where the jhuggi-jhopri clusters are situated, falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Government and its agencies. It is thus submitted that any process of removal and resettlement must be undertaken only with the prior consent of the Central Government or the concerned land-owning agency6. 10. While acknowledging that, under the 2015 Policy, it is designated as the nodal agency for initiating the process of rehabilitation and relocation, DUSIB has nonetheless stated that, in the present case, since DDA is the LOA tasked with undertaking in- situ rehabilitation of the concerned JJ dwellers under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana – Housing for All (Urban)7, DUSIB has no role to play in the alleged sealing drive, nor in the determination of eligibility for relocation or rehabilitation of those found to be eligible. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO. 2/DDA 11. DDA, in its counter affidavit submitted through Mr. Prakash Chand, Deputy Director, dated 30.05.2023, has raised preliminary objections, inter alia, to the effect that the writ petitions are liable to 6 LOA 7 PMAY-HFA(U) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters be dismissed outright for being bad for misjoinder of parties, as there exists no similarity or commonality in the facts, circumstances, or documents pertaining to the individual petitioners. It is further contended that the petitioners have failed to exhaust the alternative remedies available to them under the ‘2015 Policy.’ Additionally, it is submitted that the petitions raise highly disputed questions of fact relating to the petitioners’ eligibility for rehabilitation under the extant policy, issues which, it is argued, cannot be adjudicated upon in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, 1950. 12. The petition is further challenged as being bad in law for contravening the provisions of Sections 20A and 41(h)(a) of the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, and for being contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpa Wanti & Ors.8 It is contended that the petitioners have failed to take expeditious steps following the order dated 10.01.2023 and have approached this Court belatedly. DDA has referred to the procedure adopted for conducting the surveys, the timelines provided for filing objections, and the recourse available before the EDC. Consequently, DDA challenges the petitioners’ alleged mala fide intention to perpetuate encroachment on public land. 13. It suffices to state that in its counter affidavit, DDA has submitted that fair, reasonable, and equitable measures have been undertaken to identify the JJ slum dwellers by engaging an outsourced agency, namely SPYM9. Reference is made to the proceedings 8 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4083 9 Society for Promotion of Youth and Masses Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters conducted by the EDC, particularly Authority Resolution No. 33/2017, which clarifies that residents of upper floors who do not possess separate ration cards issued prior to 01.01.2015 are not eligible for relocation or resettlement under the extant policy, as specified in Part-B, paragraph 10 of the said Authority Resolution. A para-wise response has been filed, and it is reiterated that each petitioner raises highly disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. In summary, the allegations by the petitioners regarding any deviation from the procedure prescribed under the ‘2015 Policy’ read with the ‘Protocol 2015’ are vehemently denied. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AT THE BAR FOR THE PETITIONERS 14. Mr. Mr. Vivek Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners, took this Court through the entire narrative of the 2015 Policy, drawing attention in particular to Part-B, Clause 1(iv), as well as Part-A, Clause 2(a)(iv), in addition to the draft ‘Protocol-2015’. He pointed out that the said Policy and Protocol were formulated pursuant to the directions issued in Ajay Maken v. Union of India10 dated

14.12.2015. It was vehemently contended that respondent No. 1/DUSIB was designated as the Nodal Agency for implementation of the ‘2015 Policy’ read with the ‘Protocol-2015’ under the provisions of the DUSIB Act. However, respondent No. 2/DDA sidelined DUSIB, inasmuch as DUSIB was not involved in conducting the joint survey along with the land-owning agency, i.e., respondent No. 10 W.P.(C) 11616/2015 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters 2/DDA. It was further pointed out that respondent No. 1/DUSIB, in its counter affidavit, specifically in paragraphs (8) and (9), has admitted that it played no role either in the alleged sealing drive, the determination of eligibility for rehabilitation, or in the rehabilitation process of those found eligible, and that it had no involvement whatsoever in the removal or rehabilitation exercise. 15. It was emphasized that, as per the established guidelines, it was DUSIB which had the statutory obligation to take the lead in ensuring that the in-situ rehabilitation of JJ dwellers was carried out in both letter and spirit of the 2015 Policy prior to any demolition activity being undertaken by the LOA, i.e., DDA. Instead, it was alleged that DDA unilaterally entrusted the survey work to an obscure agency, namely, the SPYM, for the purpose of conducting surveys of the identified JJ clusters, without imparting any training to its personnel. The said outsourced agency is alleged to have conducted the survey in complete violation of the prescribed guidelines. Challenging the genuineness and veracity of the data collected by SPYM, it was contended that no notice was ever served upon any of the petitioners. Even assuming that some petitioners were not present at their respective JJ dwelling units at the relevant time, it was argued that no public notices were pasted at the site, no awareness camps were conducted, and no video recordings of the surveys were made as mandated under the Protocol-2015. 16. It was further submitted that although the survey data is purported to have been collected in the month of October 2019, there is complete silence as to the precise dates on which the survey was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters conducted. There is also no clarity as to when and where the notices for the survey were displayed or pasted. Reliance was placed on various clauses of the Protocol-2015, particularly Clause B(vi) of Point 6, which provides that in cases where houses were found to be locked, the joint survey team was required to carry out a revisit after a week's time to ensure those households were not left out. It was pointed out that there were instances wherein SPYM personnel had visited the jhuggi-jhopris when all adults were away for work and children were attending schools or tuition classes, resulting in the homes being locked during the initial visit. 17. It was further pointed out that the notices dated 30.08.2021, inviting claims and objections from JJ dwellers, were pasted only at two locations, one near the public toilet (sochalaya) and another near the Kali Mata Mandir, and not at any other prominent or accessible locations within the Bhoomiheen Camp. It was further contended that no awareness camp was set up at the DDA site office on 31.08.2018, as purported. Moreover, the notice was allegedly pasted on an A-4 size sheet of paper, which was wholly inadequate and ineffective, especially considering that the majority of JJ dwellers are illiterate and would not be able to comprehend such minimal and inconspicuous communication. 18. Lastly, Mr. Tandon submitted that although some of the petitioners did approach the EDC, their representations were not entertained on the ground that the EDC was mandated only to examine the rejection of applications of JJ dwellers who had been found ineligible during the survey, and that it had no jurisdiction to consider Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 W.P.(C) 12348/2023 & Connected matters cases where individuals were completely left out of the survey list. It was therefore contended that DDA, acting under a predetermined plan, intended to rehabilitate only 1,862 households from the Bhoomiheen Camp, despite the fact that 3,024 new EWS11 housing units had already been constructed, specifically for the purpose of rehabilitating JJ dwellers from the said Camp. 19. It may be pointed out that the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in the other connected writ petitioners reiterated and aligned their submissions with the arguments advanced by Mr. Vivek Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6312/2023. Mr. Ayush Agarwala, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.169/2024 and W.P.(C) No.357/2024, submitted that the right to shelter is not only a basic human right but also a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. He contended that this right has been read repeatedly into Article 19 (e) by judicial interpretation. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decisions in Sri P. G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat12 and Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimala Totame13. 20. Summarizing his submissions, Mr. Agarwala contended that the rights of the JJ dwellers have been duly recognized under clause 4.2.3 and 4.2.3.1 of the MPD-202114, which accord priority to in situ rehabilitation as a preferred mode of resettlement. Reliance was