Aftab Alam v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Delhi High Court · 22 Dec 2022 · 2022:DHC:5801

Prathiba M. Singh

W.P.(C) 17521/2022

2022:DHC:5801

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld DUSIB’s rejection of slum dwellers’ rehabilitation claim for failing to prove possession before 2006 and clarified that “nearby areas” means contiguous or adjacent clusters only.

Full Text

2022/DHC/005801

W.P.(C) 17521/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd December, 2022

W.P.(C) 17521/2022 and CM APPL. 55903/2022
AFTAB ALAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Anupradha Singh, Advocate (M- 8448503772)

VERSUS

DELHI URBBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shobhna Thakaur, SC, (DDA), R1 (M-9810862950)
Mr. Parvinder Chuhan with Mr. Aman Ghawana R/DUSIB (M-
9868102274)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

JUDGMENT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioners in the present case are slum dwellers who are aggrieved by order passed by the DUSIB dated 15th December, 2022. By the said order, the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (hereinafter “DUSIB”) has, after verification, rejected the case of the Petitioners for being considered under the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.

3. According to the said order dated 15th December, 2022, the Petitioners were unable to produce any record to show that they were in possession of the jhuggi, prior to 1st January, 2006. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

“4. The jhuggies under reference were also got verified, to know the physical status of the same and joint inspection was conducted on 13.09.2022 by the Sr. Investigator (DUISIB) and Asstt. Director (Horticulture Division-IV) DDA. As per said site report, there are two structures (Tin Shade) which exist at the site under reference. These jhuggies are not the part of any of the 675 + 82 listed JJ Bastis, the details of these JJ bastis is available on the DUSIB website (delhishelterboard.in). The petitioners could not produce any document showing their possession prior to 01.01.2006 in these structures. 5. The definition of the "Jhuggi Jhopri Basti" has been given in Section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act wherein in Clause (iii), it has been mentioned that 'it is inhabited at least by fifty households as existing on 01.01.2006. As per the site report, there are only two structures, accordingly; they do not qualify the provisions of the definition of the JJ Basti given in the Act. ”

4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the term “nearby areas” would required to be interpreted in the present petition. She submits that the Petitioner’s jhuggi is less than 1 km away from the Goshia slum colony covered under the DUSIB’s list of jhuggis eligible for rehabilitation. She submits that since the distance is so less, the Petitioners’ jhuggi should also be eligible.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Chauhan, ld. Counsel appearing for DUSIB, submits that the matter is covered by order dated 19th October, 2022, passed in W.P.(C) 14781/2022 titled Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. DUSIB & Ors. He submits that in the said order, the Court has clearly defined the expression “nearby areas” to mean areas “either contiguous or adjacent to an identified cluster”, which criteria would not be satisfied by the present jhuggi.

6. Heard. The relevant extract of the order dated 19th October, 2022 in W.P.(C) 14781/2022 reads as under:

“4. It becomes pertinent to note that Section 2(g) of the Act contemplates the Board attaching any jhuggi jhopri cluster scattered in the “nearby areas” of any jhuggi jhopri basti. The phrase “nearby areas” cannot possibly be interpreted to extend to include a cluster which is, as per the petitioners own showing, situate at least 3 kilometres away from a recognised cluster. For the purposes of attachment of a cluster under the DUSIB Act, it would have to be established that the cluster though standing independently is either contiguous or adjacent to an identified cluster. The expression “nearby areas” would have to be interpreted to mean a cluster which is in the nature of an extension or an adjunct to an identified jhuggi jhopri basti. It would also have to be additionally established that the separate cluster was in existence along with the identified jhuggi jhopri basti from prior to the recognised cut-off date of 01 January 2006. Viewed in that light, it is manifest that the arguments addressed on lines noted above, would not sustain.”

7. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not deserves to be interfered with.

8. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioner No.1 as also three other family members of the Petitioners are disabled. Therefore, they may be granted some time to vacate the jhuggi.

9. Recording the undertaking of the Petitioners’ counsel and subject to affidavits being filed by the Petitioners by 10th January, 2023, the Petitioners are given time till 31st January, 2023 to vacate the jhuggis on their own, voluntarily.

10. The present petition is accordingly disposed of, along with all pending applications. No further orders are called for.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 22, 2022 Rahul/MS

Aftab Alam v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation