Girja Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 2nd September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 12180/2024 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant herein.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant preferred the subject petition against notices dated 13th July, 2024, 24th July, 2024 and letter dated 27th August, 2024 (‘Impugned Notices’), issued by the Central Public Works Department (“CPWD”)/ Respondent No.2 whereby the Appellant was directed to remove her temporary structure-cum-workplace situated near A-57, Moti Bagh - I, New Delhi – 110021.

3. He states that the Appellant structure is a slum, which has been in existence since 1960s, wherein the father-in-law of the Appellant and subsequent generations have been providing ironing services to the residents of the locality. He states that therefore all the cut off dates are met as per the ‘Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015’ (“DUSIB Policy”). He further states that as per the website of the Delhi Urban Shelter Board (DUSIB), a total of 675 Slum Jhopri Clusters (JJ Clusters) have been identified in Delhi and one of the identified JJ Cluster is at Shanker Camp behind C-II Flats, Moti Bagh near Vidhan Chand Vidyalaya. He states that the Appellant’s slum is less than 1 Km away from the said identified JJ Cluster and therefore, the Petitioner’s structure should be included in the said JJ Cluster in terms of proviso to Section 2(g) of DUSIB Act, 2010.

4. He also states that the Appellant is covered under the definition of ‘street vendor’ provided in Section 2(l) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 [‘Street Vendors Act’]. He states that until the Town Vending Committee under the aforesaid Street Vendors Act undertakes a survey of all the street vendors under its jurisdiction, the removal of any street vendors is not permitted. He, however, clarifies that he is confining his prayer for rehabilitation and not for stay of demolition.

5. This Court has perused the impugned order and is in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that the structure in question had been unlawfully constructed by the Appellant on public land for the purposes of providing ironing services. Mere long-standing use of public land, even for a substantial period, does not confer any legal rights upon the Appellant to continue to occupy it.

6. This Court is further of the view that the structure does not meet the criteria for protection under the DUSIB Act or the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, as it does not qualify as a ‘jhuggi’ or a ‘jhuggi jhopri basti’ that would warrant Appellant’s rehabilitation or relocation.

7. The appellant’s argument that the appellant’s structure is a part of an identified JJ Cluster situated nearly a kilometer away is a ‘stretch’ and untenable in law. Further, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the temporary structure qualifies for protection under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The Act does not extend protection to such permanent structures built without proper authorization or in contravention of land use norms.

8. Accordingly, the present appeal being bereft of merits is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to file an application with the DUSIB which shall be considered in accordance with law.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 N.Khanna