NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined any immediate relief to slum dwellers who fear demolition action in Okhla for being declared “rank trespassers” on the Yamuna floodplain.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to hear the appeal filed by the locals on Wednesday itself but indicated it would be automatically listed on Thursday if documents were in order.
The slum dwellers challenged a single judge’s decision to dismiss their plea against the demolition of a slum in the Okhla Dhobi Ghat area, saying it was illegal and posed a significant threat to the ecologically sensitive floodplain.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma, while dealing with the petition by “Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi Adhikar Manch”, had earlier observed that the “so-called members” of the petitioner union were not entitled to any compensation or rehabilitation as they were “rank trespassers” who repeatedly returned to the site, which was acquired by DDA for developing a biodiversity park.
“Since the subject site was acquired by DDA for the channelisation and protection of the Yamuna river, the removal of the petitioner union from the subject site serves the greater public interest,” the court noted. It also cited the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Act, 2010, and a 2015 policy, observing that not every slum dweller or JJ basti was automatically entitled to alternative housing.
“The JJ basti in question is not part of the 675 notified JJ bastis listed by DUSIB, further establishing that the residents of the petitioner union are occupying the area illegally,” the court observed in its verdict on Monday.
The encroachment in the area, the court said, disrupted the natural flow of water and, according to experts, recurring floods in Delhi were primarily driven by such unlawful settlements on drains and the riverbed.
Dismissing the plea, it also imposed Rs 10,000 as costs on the petitioner organisation that claimed the Dhobi Ghat jhuggi cluster existed since the 1990s, but on Sept 23, 2020, police asked its residents to vacate their shelters owing to a proposed demolition the following day.
The petitioner claimed not being served a prior eviction notice and said that given the demolition was carried out in the name of environmental concerns, DDA failed to provide any temporary shelter or proper housing to the residents.
“In summary, there can be no iota of doubt that the petitioner union, being rank trespassers and unlawfully occupying a portion of the subject site, is causing immense harm and pollution to the river Yamuna, as exemplified from the photographs placed on the record,” the court stated.
“The petitioner union has failed to demonstrate any legal right, title, or interest of its members in the subject site. At the cost of repetition, the subject site is not even capable of being inhabited,” it added.
