The Delhi High Court refused to stop the sabotage operations of slums being run by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in their judgment given in Ram Devi Rai and other vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and others, No. 12348/023 (and connected case).
In the case, the petitioner, who is a resident of the slum (JJ) of the area, moved the Hon’ble High Court and challenged the proposed sabotage. He said that this sabotage is against the provisions of Delhi Slum and slum rehabilitation and rehabilitation policy, 2015.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court said, “Even assuming that the petitioners may have some concrete basis for the legal right to rehabilitate, even if the court decides in their favor, it can only increase the number of people who get benefits under the current rehabilitation policy.” But making such a claim does not mean that they maintain possession of public land forever or get the right to live permanently in their slums, especially when the action of removing the slum is in a big public interest and is being done according to the legal process.
The court’s comment was based on the fact that the DDA conducted a survey as per the 2015 policy in 2019, and now after so long, the validity of that survey cannot be questioned.
The petitioners did not use the legal measures available under the policy since 2019, and only in 2023, when they received notice of sabotage, the court moved to the court. Since they are illegal occupants, they cannot seek any firm or permanent right to rehabilitation.
While reaching this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court cited the judgment given in the case of Ram Bharosa vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (2023), which clearly stated that under the 2015 policy, only the benefit of rehabilitation will be available to those who live up to the fixed criteria. The court also reiterated the decision of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997), stating that the state (government) did not have a legal responsibility to give every illegal occupied person to an alternative house.
The petitioners who were before the Honorable Delhi High Court were not included in the list of eligible rehabilitation people based on the survey conducted in 2019. While under the 2015 policy, an Appellate Authority had the option to go, the petitioners did not use it and reached the High Court directly in 2023.
Two important principles were rejected by dismissal of the petition: (a) If a person does not work with timely and vigilance for his right, he cannot expect justice from the court, and (b) The writ petition is not a suitable medium to resolve the controversies related to the facts.
Following this court’s decision, the DDA began to break slums in the landless camp last month. Now a big constitutional question arises here: Is this kind of sabotage, especially where people have been living for a long time, are not violated by “right to housing” under Article 21 given in their Constitution?
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave compensation of Rs 10 lakh in the case of sabotage by the Prayagraj Development Authority, as the slums broken were dropped just 24 hours after the notice, which was unfair in terms of the process. The Supreme Court said that even if the occupiers are, it is necessary to adopt a fair and appropriate process with them.
However, the court also clarified that if the entire process has been adopted according to the law in a sabotage, it cannot be declared illegal only by saying “right to housing”. It is clear that the right to housing is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In Chamel Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996), the Supreme Court had said that every citizen should get the right to housing to live a respectable life.
But at the same time it is also true that on the basis that someone is poor, he cannot make unauthorized construction on public land. In the case of Nawab Khan, the Supreme Court made it clear that it is the work of the court to decide whether the process of evicting a person is appropriate, justified and legal or not. The court also said that no person can occupy public land for private use without government permission, and it is the duty of government agencies to remove such encroachments according to the law.
In the 1974 judgment of Ramdas Shenoy, the Supreme Court had said that it is the continuous responsibility of the municipality to protect the residential areas from illegal construction. In 2022, the Gujarat High Court said in the ‘Bandhakam Mazdoor Organization vs. Gujarat State’ case that “the rights and encroachments of housing are two different things. Until a legal right is made in favor of a person, it cannot justify the encroachment on public land by citing only ‘rights of housing’.”
Similarly, in a case related to slums of ‘Bela Estate’ (Yamuna Fludplain) in 2023, the Delhi High Court again said that encroachment on government land is not a fundamental right and such people will get the right to rehabilitate only when they have legal rights.
In the ‘Ravi Ranjan Singh vs. DDA’ case on 30 May 2025, the Delhi High Court said that Pakistani Hindu refugees can neither demand rehabilitation nor maintain possession of government land due to not being an Indian citizen, not being an Indian citizen. The court also said that to claim that “I am an Indian citizen, so I should get an alternative accommodation” – this is also not right in every situation, especially when that land comes in a banned zone like Yamuna Fludplane.
A similar stance was also seen in the ‘Shakarpur Slum Union vs. DDA’ case in 2021, where the Delhi High Court said that the occupation of the government land is not a fundamental right of anyone, and if anyone has no policy-based right to rehabilitation, he cannot demand rehabilitation.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court in a case on 20 March 2024, where the court himself took cognizance, said that illegal construction on public land cannot be allowed only because of being poor. The court warned that if such encroachments were approved in the name of sympathy, the law and order would completely deteriorate and there will be a big loss to social interest.
The DDA’s sabotage campaign is going on today, it has now got legal support from the court’s decision. However, in media and some groups, it is being said that this action is a conspiracy to remove the poor and make way for real estate projects, which is a matter of concern.
But it is also true that the right to housing does not give anyone freedom to continue illegally occupying public land. In the case of landless camps, records show that around ₹ 835.88 crore has been spent for in-site rehabilitation under the 2015 policy. Those who were found to be unworthy in the survey, or who neither participated in the survey nor appealed, cannot say that injustice was done to them or a violation of policy.
If such claims are accepted, then development works will be delayed, public money will be misused, and everyone will push the law back by showing themselves victims. This thinking is in line with the Supreme Court’s 2013 verdict ‘Deepak Kumar Mukherjee vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation’, stating that illegal construction is not only a violation of law, but also spoils the planned development system of an area.
In the end, this is a fundamental principle of the Constitution – “A duty is also associated with every right.” And in this context, “it is the duty of every citizen to demand any protection or rehabilitation under the law,” it is only the duty of every citizen – “not to occupy public land and to participate honestly in the rehabilitation process”.
