Ram Dev Rai & Ors. v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Ors.

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) 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 SPYM[9]. Reference is made to the proceedings

9 Society for Promotion of Youth and Masses 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 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 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 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

14 Master Plan for Delhi 2021 placed on the decision in Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi 15. He further argued that the core issue rising for consideration is whether such a basic human and fundamental right can be denied merely on account of temporary absenteeism from the property, and, if so, whether the threshold for establishing such absenteeism should not be set at a significantly high level. While conceding that a resettlement policy must be practical and cannot accommodate indefinite absenteeism, it was emphasized that any such determination must be based on strict and fair standards. He contended that, in the present case, even assuming that DDA followed due procedure, the implementation of the allotment policy remains in a state of flux, given the pendency of numerous writ petitions in which interim orders have been passed. In such a scenario, a direction to consider the petitioners for allotment would not disrupt or invalidate any finalised resettlement policy, nor would it cause any tangible prejudice to the respondent authority. In support of his submissions, Mr. Agarwala placed reliance on the decisions in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.16, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan17, Gainda Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi18 and Udal v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board19.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DDA

21. Mr. Sanjay Katyal & Ms. Kritika Gupta, learned Standing Counsels appearing on behalf of DDA, at the outset laid down the foundational facts underlying the present relocation and rehabilitation measures. It was submitted that the present exercise pertains to the removal of encroachments from Pocket A-1, A-2, and A-5 of Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi, comprising three Jhuggi Jhopri (JJ) Clusters, namely: Jawaharlal Camp, Navjeevan Camp, and Bhoomiheen Camp. It was stated that approximately 8,461 households were identified in these three JJ clusters, and pursuant to the surveys conducted, 1,862 households were found eligible for relocation. These eligible households have been shifted to EWS houses constructed by DDA at A-14, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. The allottees were provided these units upon payment of a nominal amount of Rs. 1,42,000/-, which includes Rs. 30,000/- towards maintenance charges for a period of five years, as part of the beneficiary’s contribution. It was further submitted that the rehabilitation plan has been structured in the following three phases: “Phase I: Relocation and rehabilitation of about 3000 number of jhuggi dwellers of Bhoominheen Camp in the erstwhile Community Centre site measuring 3.068 Ha swapped and shifted at the intersection of the two roads Guru Ravidas Road and Govinderpuri Road which is still under encroachment. Phase II: The land under encroachment of Bhoomiheen camp Insitu slum to be vacated and utilized for rehabilitation of the eligible dwellers of the remaining JJ Clusters, namely Navejeevan Camp and Jawahar Camp on PPP mode Phase III: Accommodation the remaining slum dwellers in Phase II development site and to carve out Neighbourhood Park from the site for Community Centre”

22. It was urged that unless and until the present petitioners, who were not found in the survey list, vacate the site, it would be practically impossible to proceed with the demolition of the JJ clusters and thereby implement the long-pending rehabilitation process. The crux of the submissions advanced by Mr. Sanjay Katyal & Ms. Kritika Gupta, learned Standing Counsels for DDA, is that in terms of the Explanation to Section 10(1) as well as the two provisos to subsection (3) of Section 10 of the DUSIB Act, the Central Government, being the LOA in the present case, acting through the DDA, is empowered to frame and implement an independent scheme for removal of jhuggi jhopri camps/bastis and the resettlement of their residents, without requiring the involvement of the DUSIB.

23. It was further pointed out that both the 2015 Policy and the ‘Protocol-2015’ were duly adopted by DDA in its Authority Meetings vide Resolution Nos. 33/2017 and 64/2018. Pursuant thereto, the Protocol for removal of jhuggis and JJ bastis located on DDA land was framed, as encapsulated in Annexure-IX to Resolution NO. 64/2018. In accordance therewith, surveys were conducted at Bhoomiheen Camp by the outsourced agency, SPYM, which had deployed approximately 15–20 teams to collect the necessary data. The survey teams operated daily from around 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., in close coordination with the local pardhaan and JJ dwellers. It was submitted that notices dated 17.07.2019 were prominently affixed at multiple conspicuous locations within the cluster, such as public toilets, temples, and the boundary walls of local parks, informing all concerned that the survey would commence on 09.08.2019. Consequently, door-to-door surveys were undertaken between 09.08.2019 and 25.09.2019, without any interruption, demur, or protest from the residents.

24. It was further submitted that the data collected during the surveys was uploaded in real time on a mobile application by the employees and representatives of SPYM, and that extensive video recordings of the survey process were made in the presence of JJ dwellers. At the end of each survey day, SPYM submitted the day’s collected data through the mobile app. In addition, officers of the respondent also downloaded the data daily and, by way of abundant caution, maintained hard copies of the survey records. It was submitted that, in continuation of the earlier process, another notice dated 03.10.2019 was also affixed at various conspicuous locations within the cluster, intimating the residents about those jhuggis that had been found locked during the initial survey. Consequently, a second round of survey commenced from 09.10.2019 and continued until the end of October 2019. Upon conclusion of the survey exercise, SPYM submitted comprehensive data covering a total of 2,618 households.

25. Mr. Sanjay Katyal & Ms. Kritika Gupta, learned Standing Counsels further submitted that following the completion of the survey, the second stage of the process was initiated, which involved inviting objections and claims with respect to the provisional survey list. In this regard, a public notice dated 31.08.2020 was issued, informing the residents that a facilitation camp would be set up at the DDA site office, located in close proximity to the JJ cluster, to enable aggrieved persons to file their claims or objections to the survey findings. Owing to the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation, the initial deadline was extended up to 30.09.2020, and a total of 447 claims/objections were received in response. As a third step in the relocation process, an EDC was constituted, comprising officers of the rank of Deputy Director from the Land Management and Land Disposal Wing of DDA, to examine the received claims in accordance with the ‘2015 Policy’ adopted by the DDA vide Resolution NO. 64/2018. Based on the recommendations of the EDC, 282 additional jhuggi jhopri dwellers were found eligible for inclusion in the primary survey list. Consequently, with the approval of the Competent Authority, a consolidated list of 2,891 jhuggi jhopri dwellers was placed before the EDC for final determination of eligibility.

26. Mr. Katyal also brought to the attention of the Court that, during the relevant period, the Ministry of Home Affairs had issued the ‘Unlock-4’ Guidelines vide order dated 29.08.2020, which allowed free movement of persons and specifically did not declare the Bhoomiheen Camp as a containment zone. He further elaborated on the fourth step undertaken by DDA, which was to provide a final opportunity to the affected persons to rectify deficiencies in their documentation. In this regard, public notices were issued on 14.03.2022, informing the JJ dwellers that a facilitation camp would be organized from 21.03.2022 to 08.04.2022 at the DDA site office located at Kalkaji, near the JJ Cluster at Bhoomiheen Camp. The purpose of the camp was to enable applicants and claimants to submit any requisite documents necessary for consideration of their eligibility under the rehabilitation policy.

27. Lastly, Mr. Sanjay Katyal & Ms. Kritika Gupta, learned Standing Counsels submitted that between 21.05.2022 and 30.05.2023, the EDC scrutinized and examined a total of 2,891 cases. Of these, 1,862 JJ dwellers were found to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were declared eligible for rehabilitation, whereas 1,029 were declared ineligible for not satisfying the requisite norms. It was further submitted that, in accordance with the procedure laid down under the extant guidelines, the JJ dwellers whose applications had been rejected were afforded the right to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted by DDA. This Appellate Authority comprised a retired Additional District & Sessions Judge, a retired IAS officer of the rank of Joint Secretary, and an expert member. The Appellate Authority, from 04.12.2022 onwards, heard as many as 738 appeals and published lists of dwellers found eligible for rehabilitation on 17.02.2022, 17.06.2022, and 28.09.2022, while the list of ineligible dwellers was published on 07.11.2022.

28. It was contended that only upon completion of this extensive and rigorous procedural exercise, a public notice dated 05.04.2023 was affixed at various conspicuous locations within the cluster, informing all concerned that a demolition drive would commence after the expiry of 30 days. Accordingly, demolition at the site of Bhoomiheen Camp was carried out in a phased manner, commencing with Block-D from 03.06.2023 to 08.06.2023. The second phase of the demolition, covering Blocks A, B, and C, commenced from 05.07.2023. Mr. Sanjay Katyal & Ms. Kritika Gupta, learned Standing Counsels concluded by stating that 607 jhuggi jhopdi units have been identified as being protected under interim orders passed by this Court. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed upon the decisions rendered in Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi 20; Ajay Maken v. Union of India21 and Ram Bharose v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board22.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

29. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties at the Bar and I have meticulously gone through the record of the present matter and the case laws cited.

30. At the outset, although the instant batch of writ petitions raises substantial preliminary concerns, including those relating to maintainability as well as the adjudication of disputed questions of fact, this Court has elected to proceed to examine the core legal issues canvassed by learned counsel for the parties. For assessing the legality and propriety of the actions undertaken by DDA, it is necessary to briefly consider the scheme and intent of the DUSIB Act, which came into force on 13.05.2010. The DUSIB Act provides for the establishment of a statutory Board tasked with certain specified functions delineated under Chapter III of the enactment. The term ‘jhuggi’ is defined under Section 2(f) of the DUSIB Act to mean any structure, whether temporary or permanent and irrespective of the materials used, possessing the following characteristics: -

(i) it is built for the residential purpose;

(ii) its location is not in conformity with the land use of Delhi Master

(iii) it is not duly authorized by local authority having jurisdiction; (iv) it is included in the jhuggi Jhopdis basti declared as such by the Board, by a notification.

31. Section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act defines ‘jhuggi jhopri basti’ in the following terms: - “jhuggi jhopri basti” means any group of jhuggis which the Board may, by notification, declare as a jhuggi jhopri basti in accordance with the following factors, namely:-

(i) the group of jhuggis is unfit for human habitation;

(ii) it, by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such jhuggis, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities, or any combination of these factors, is detrimental to safety, health or hygiene; and

(iii) it is inhabited at least by fifty households as existing on 31st

March, 2002: Provided that the Board may, by order, attach any jhuggi or jhuggis scattered in the nearby areas to any jhuggi jhopri basti and such jhuggi or jhuggis shall be deemed to be part of such jhuggi jhopri basti;

32. Chapter-II of the DUSIB Act outlines the constitution, composition, and service conditions of the Board and its members. However, for the purposes of the present case, the Court’s focus is confined primarily to the provisions under Chapter III, which enumerate the statutory functions of the Board. It is therefore apposite to reproduce and examine the relevant provisions therein that bear upon the controversy at hand: -

this Act. (2) It shall be the duty of every local authority and of every department of the Government to make available to the Board all information in its possession relevant to the conduct of such survey. Removal and resettlement of jhuggi jhopri bastis

10. (1) The Board shall have the power to prepare a scheme for the removal of any jhuggi jhopri basti and for resettlement of the residents thereof, and the consent of the residents of the jhuggi jhopri basti shall not be required for the preparation or implementation of such a scheme. Explanation.- Nothing in sub-section (1) shall derogate the power of the Central Government to remove jhuggis, if required. (2) Every such scheme shall specify the amount to be paid by the land owner and by the persons to be resettled towards the cost of new houses to be allotted to them and also the criteria for eligibility for resettlement. Explanation: For the removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that owner of the land from where the basti is removed and the subsequent beneficiary-residents to be resettled shall contribute towards the cost of new houses to be allotted to them and the said amount of the contribution shall be specified in the scheme. (3) The Board may, after prior consultation with the Government, cause any jhuggi jhopri basti to be removed and may resettle such residents thereof as may be eligible in accordance with the scheme prepared under sub-section (1), and it shall be the duty of the local authority having jurisdiction and of the police and of any other agency or department whose assistance the Board may require to co-operate with and render all reasonable assistance to the Board: Provided that where jhuggi jhopri basti is on the land belonging to the Central Government or any of its organizations, the process of removal and resettlement shall be undertaken with the prior consent of the Central Government or its organization concerned: Provided further that such resettlement shall not be done in contravention of the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (61 of 1957) and those of the Master Plan for Delhi or the zonal development plans prepared thereunder. Scheme of improvement of jhuggi bastis

11. (1) The Board may prepare a scheme for the improvement of any jhuggi jhopri basti which may include provision of toilets and bathing facilities, improvement of drainage, provision of water supply, street paving, and provision of dustbins, or sites for garbage collection, street lighting, or any of them, or provision of any like facilities: Provided that no such scheme shall be prepared if the owner of the land on which the jhuggi jhopri basti is situated has already consented to the preparation of a scheme for the removal of the jhuggi jhopri basti under section 10 and has paid his share of the cost thereof. (2) The Board may take all measures which may be necessary for the implementation of any scheme for improvement of a jhuggi jhopri basti prepared under sub-section (1) and it shall be the duty of the local authority, power generation and distribution companies or any licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) having operations in the area, and any department or undertaking of the Government to render all reasonable assistance for the implementation thereof. (3) A scheme prepared under sub-section (1) may include provision for payment or for contribution of labour by the residents of the jhuggi jhopri basti individually or collectively, and may also include provision for recovery of charges for the use of toilets and bathing facilities: Provided that no such payment or contribution of labour, other than charges for use of toilet and bathing facilities, shall be levied unless the scheme has been published and the residents given an opportunity to make representations and suggestions regarding it in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations, and such representations or suggestions, if any, have been duly considered by the Board. Scheme of redevelopment of jhuggi jhopi basti 12.(1) The Board may, with the consent of the owner of the land on which the jhuggi jhopri basti is situated, work out schemes for collective community rehabilitation, relocation or in-situ upgradation and involve private sector/slum cooperatives for redevelopment of the basti with a view to bringing about environmental improvement and improvement in the living conditions of the residents. Rehabilitation of the residents of the jhuggi jhopri bastis who would be affected by redevelopment shall form an integral part of the rehabilitation scheme. (2) The consent of the residents of the jhuggi jhopri basti shall not be required for the preparation and implementation of any scheme for redevelopment of the basti under this section. (3) The redevelopment scheme referred to in sub-section (1) may provide for construction and disposal by sale or lease of land for commercial, residential, institutional and light industrial use or any one or more of them as per the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (61 of 1957) and those of the Master Plan for Delhi and Zonal Development Plans, etc. prepared thereunder. (4) The Board may permit the owners on whose land a basti for which the scheme of re-development has been prepared under subsection (1), to implement that scheme. Such scheme may not be executed by the Board itself.

33. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that DUSIB is vested with the authority to conduct surveys of any jhuggi jhopri bastis for the purposes enumerated therein. In matters relating to the removal and resettlement of Jhuggi Jhopdis, the Board is mandated to prepare a scheme for the removal of any such Jhuggi Jhopdis Basti and for resettlement of its residents. Importantly, the consent of the residents of the jhuggi jhopri cluster is not a prerequisite for such removal. To effectuate the removal, the Board may seek assistance from other agencies, including local authorities and the police. Furthermore, the Explanation appended to Section 10(1) operates as a proviso affirming the power of the Central Government to undertake the removal of jhuggis independently of the involvement of the DUSIB, if necessary. Correspondingly, the proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 10 stipulates that where the jhuggi jhopri basti is situated on land belonging to the Central Government or any of its organizations, the process of removal and resettlement must be undertaken only with the prior consent of the Central Government or the relevant organization. The second proviso prohibits any settlement that contravenes the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority Act as well as the Master Plan for Delhi and/or the Zonal Development Plan.

34. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Central Government, addressing the challenges of a rapidly expanding urban population and increasing rural-urban migration, introduced a flagship housing initiative known as the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana23. This programme was conceptualized to bridge the gap and achieve the ambitious goal of ‘housing for all’ by the year 2022. The PMAY is structured into two distinct components: (i) Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban), which is implemented by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, and (ii) Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin)24, administered by the Ministry of Rural Development. The PMAY-U scheme was launched on 25.06.2015 with the objective of: “The Mission seeks to address the affordable housing requirement in urban areas through following programme verticals: • Slum rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers with participation of private developers using land as a resource • Promotion of Affordable Housing through Credit Linked Subsidy • Affordable Housing in Partnership with Public & Private sectors • Subsidy for Beneficiary-Led individual house construction /enhancement • The mission verticals, originally designed for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Lower Income Group (LIG) segment, have been protracted to include the Middle Income Group (MIG) as well, thus magnifying the total net of beneficiaries.”

35. The flagship programme further empowered the States, Union Territories, and urban local bodies to take appropriate ground-level decisions to ensure the fair and time-bound clearance of projects PMAY PMAY-G within their respective jurisdictions. It is evident that, in order to implement the said flagship programme in a mission mode, item NO. 64/2019 was placed on the agenda for the Authority Meeting scheduled on 13.08.2019. The item sought permission to undertake surveys by engaging SPYM, and to proceed with the in-situ redevelopment and rehabilitation of JJ clusters in Delhi, including the Bhoomiheen Camp, Govindpuri. This envisaged the construction of 3,024 EWS flats at Pocket A-14, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi, with observations that approximately 81% of the construction work had been completed and was likely to be finished by March 2020. The proposal included shifting the Jhuggi Jhopri clusters from Moti Lal Nehru Camp, Jawaharlal Nehru Camp, and Bhoomiheen Camp at Kalkaji Extension to the aforesaid flats after completion of the surveys. It is relevant to note that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of Jhuggi Jhopri dwellers for resettlement was fixed as 01.01.2015, pursuant to a report submitted by the DUSIB, which was endorsed during the meeting, and the following decisions were taken:

undertaken by the DDA as per the ‘Policy’ for In-situ Slum Rehabilitation/Redevelopment approved by the ‘Authority’ which is in consonance with the PMAY (U) guidelines. The eligibility of the JJ dwellers of these clusters will be decided strictly as per the DUSIB Policy dated 11.12.2017. VC, DDA has directed to prepare the Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) of these JJ clusters, which are at various stages.” {Bold Portions Emphasized}

36. The aforesaid Item No. 64/2019 was eventually approved in the meeting of the Authority held on 13.08.2019. There is considerable merit in the plea advanced on behalf of the respondent/DDA that the DUSIB had no role assigned in conducting the survey or the in-situ rehabilitation process. Whatever practical or political considerations may have influenced this arrangement, the fundamental position remains that while the DUSIB is empowered under then DUSIB Act, to prepare schemes for the removal of jhuggi jhopri bastis and the resettlement of their residents in consultation with the Government, the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the DUSIB Act clearly specifies that for jhuggi jhopri bastis situated on land belonging to the Central Government or its organizations, the process of removal and resettlement must be undertaken with the prior consent of the Central Government or the concerned

37. Thus, it is evident that there was no binding obligation on the part of the Central Government or its organizations to involve the DUSIB in the removal or resettlement of "jhuggi jhopri bastis" located on land owned by them. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to certain observations of this Court in the case of Ajay Maken (supra), wherein a discourse took place on the interpretation of the explanation clause to sub-section (1) to section 10 of the DUSIB Act, that is re-produced below: - “143. Under the Explanation to Section 10(1), nothing in that sub section “shall derogate the power of the Central Government to remove jhuggis, if required.” Under the proviso to Section 10(3) of the DUSIB Act, where the jhuggi jhopri basti is on land belonging to the Central Government or any of its organisations, “a process of removal and resettlement shall be undertaken with the prior consent of the Central Government or its organisation concerned.” The second proviso to Section 10(3) of the DUSIB Act makes it mandatory that the resettlement should not be done in contravention of the DDA Act and of the MPD for the zonal development plan (ZDP) prepared the reunder.

144. A question that has arisen in the present case concerns the applicability of the DUSIB Act to the removal and resettlement of jhuggi jhopri basti located on land owned by the Central Government. Although, at the hearing on 12 October 2018 this was a question that arose for consideration before the Court, as the JJ cluster in the present case is located on land belonging to the Railways, the Central Government subsequently filed an affidavit accepting the 2015 policy prepared by the DUSIB under Section 11 of the DUSIB Act, subject to the caveat that the power of the Central Government would nevertheless be simultaneous with that of the DUSIB.

145. On account of the multiplicity of the agencies, which can be termed as ‘land owning agencies’, the question that arises is whether the DUSIB Act would apply in the instance of each such removal and resettlement of JJ bastis in the NCT of Delhi? The admitted position is that the slums managed earlier by the Slum and JJ Wing of the MCD, now stand transferred to the DUSIB. However, there are many more slums, some of them on lands belonging to the Central Government, which may not as yet be entrusted to the DUSIB. These could include JJ clusters/slums on Railway land as well.

146. It would be an anomaly if the safeguards and protocols laid down in Sudama Singh (supra) are made applicable only to slums managed by the DUSIB, but not to the other slums in the NCT of Delhi. It must be recalled that as far as land as a subject is concerned, it is outside the purview of the powers of the GNCTD. This stands clarified by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Government of NCT Delhi v. Union of India (2016) 14 SCC 353. Specific to the said issue the following observations of the Supreme Court are relevant: “(xiv) The interpretative dissection of Article 239AA(3)(a) reveals that the Parliament has the power to make laws for the National Capital Territory of Delhi with respect to any matters enumerated in the State List and the Concurrent List. At the same time, the Legislative Assembly of Delhi also has the power to make laws overall those subjects which figure in the Concurrent List and all, but three excluded subjects, in the State List.

(xv) A conjoint reading of clauses (3)(a) and (4) of Article

239AAdivulges that the executive power of the Government of NCTD is coextensive with the legislative power of the Delhi Legislative Assembly and, accordingly, the executive power of the Council of Ministers of Delhi spans over all subjects in the Concurrent List and all, but three excluded subjects, in the State List. However, if the Parliament makes law in respect of certain subjects falling in the State List or the Concurrent List, the executive action of the State must conform to the law made by the Parliament.

(xvi) As a natural corollary, the Union of India has exclusive executive power with respect to the NCT of Delhi relating to the three matters in the State List in respect of which the power of the Delhi Legislative Assembly has been excluded.”

147. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (LG) functions under the concerned, it is the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) in the Government of India which has the final call. Both the MCD and the DDA function under the administrative control of the MoUD. In other words, on issues of land the power vests in the Central Government and not with the GNCTD.

148. Inasmuch as the LG has notified, with the approval of the MoUD, the 2015 Policy, the Central Government should be taken to have accepted the 2015 Policy insofar as it concerns lands belonging to the Central Government. The 2015 Policy acknowledges the obligation as spelt out in Sudama Singh to make schemes for provide regular housing to jhuggi dwellers. It further acknowledges Sudama Singh as laying down that it is only in an extraordinary situation, where in-situ rehabilitation is not possible, that resort must be had to rehabilitation by relocation. The 2015 Policy also acknowledges the Supreme Court's decision in Gainda Ram v. MCD (2010) 10 SCC 715 that the poor who come to the city for work “must reside reasonably close to their place of work.” These basic legal requirements in the matter of dealing with jhuggi jhopri dwellers cannot be given a go-by the Central Government in relation to slums on land of the Central Government.

149. This would be the position even if the Central Government were to take the position that in terms of the Explanation to Section 10(1) of the DUSIB Act and the first proviso to Section 10(3) of the DUSIB Act it will be up to the Central Government to proceed with the removal of the jhuggis if so required without DUSIB's consent. In other words, even if the Central Government were to take the stand that the JJ Batis/clusters on its land will not be covered under the 2015 Policy framed under Section 11 of the DUSIB Act, the basic procedural protections and acknowledgment of the rights to adequate housing and against forced evictions therein, consistent with the legal requirements as spelt out in Sudama Singh would nevertheless continue to govern the removal and resettlement of such jhuggis. For that matter, even as regards the Railways, which is but a Ministry of the Central Government itself, the position can be no different. The claim of the Railways that they can deal with the JJ bastis/clusters and jhuggi dwellers on land held by them in a manner contrary to the law laid down in Sudama Singh cannot, from a legal standpoint, be accepted. This is notwithstanding the stand taken by the Railways that in view of the specific provisions of the Railways Act they can proceed to unilaterally deal with the jhuggi dwellers or JJ clusters on Railway land by treating them as ‘encroachers’ unmindful of the constitutional and statutory obligations. xxxx

179. A detailed procedure has been set out for conducting the joint survey receiving claims and objections which would be disposed of by a Claim and Objection Redressal Committee. The procedure for determination of the eligibility of the JJ dweller to rehabilitation has also been set out. There is to be an Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC) constituted by the CEO of DUSIB which will comprise the officers of DUSIB and representatives of the concerned ERO and AERO(Electoral Registration Officer and Assistant Electoral Registration Officer) as nominated by the District Election Officer (DEO).

180. A detailed programme is to be drawn up by the DUSIB including holding of a pre-camp at the side to facilitate filling up the requisite application form. A schedule is to be permanently displayed in the JJ basti mentioning the place and time to appear before the EDC along with the requisite documents. A finalised list of eligible and ineligible JJ dwellers is then to be submitted by the EDC to the CEODUSIB for approval. If a genuine case is left out, an Appellate Authority is to be provided for to whom such left out person may appeal.

181. Post survey, and after receiving the cost of rehabilitation from the Land Owning Agency (LOA), DUSIB, in the presence of representatives of eligible JJ dwellers, is to conduct a draw of flats to be allotted to the eligible JJ dwellers. After receipt of the beneficiary contribution and verification of possession, letters are to be issued and the JJ dwellers are to be given two months' time for shifting. Thereafter, steps are to be taken for removal with the assistance of the police. Para 7 of the Protocol sets out the steps for actual removal of the jhuggis after the above steps are complete. Inter alia, it talks of DUSIB facilitating “transportation of household articles/belongings of eligible JJ dwellers to the place of alternative accommodation, if necessary”.” {BOLD PORTIONS EMPHASIZED}

38. In summary, the aforesaid decision unequivocally establishes the legal position that, pursuant to the explanation to Section 10(1), the plenary power of the Central Government to address the removal of jhuggis and their relocation or rehabilitation on land owned by it is preserved and is not in derogation of the powers of the Board. Simultaneously, it is categorically held that the safeguards and protocols laid down in Sudama Singh (supra) are applicable not only to slums managed by the DUSIB, i.e., the State Government, but also extend to other slums within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which, by necessary implication, includes jhuggi jhopri bastis situated on land owned by the Central Government. It is therefore manifest that the broad safeguards and protocols as prescribed in the ‘2015 Policy’ and the ‘Protocol 2015’, which provide for fundamental procedural protections and recognition of the right to adequate housing post-eviction, continue to govern the removal and resettlement of such jhuggis, even in cases involving the Central Government.

APPROVAL FOR SURVEYS AND IN-SITU RELOCATION AND REHABILITATION

39. In view of the legal position on the subject, it is expedient to examine the guidelines provided by the ‘Protocol-2015’. A careful reading reveals that, after consultations with various stakeholders including both the State and Central Governments, the Protocol envisages the DUSIB as the Nodal Agency responsible for conducting comprehensive surveys and determining which jhuggi jhopri bastis are eligible for in-situ improvement, redevelopment, or resettlement and rehabilitation. It mandates the adoption of a uniform approach across all JJ bastis within the NCT of Delhi, in alignment with the provisions of the 2015 Policy. The Protocol-2015 outlines four distinct stages for the removal of JJ bastis, namely: (a) preventive steps; (b) procedure for conducting joint surveys; (c) procedure for eligibility determination; and (d) post-survey steps.

40. As regards pre-survey steps, the Protocol provides that a proposal for removal of JJ bastis may be initiated by the LOA and submitted to the DUSIB with appropriate justification, including details relating to the cost of rehabilitation. The cut-off date for eligibility was fixed for all JJ bastis that came into existence prior to 01.01.2006. Concerning the procedure for conducting the joint survey, the Protocol lays down the following provisions: “(i) DUSIB shall paste a notice for conducting the survey, at least four weeks in advance, at conspicuous places in the JJ basti in order to inform the jhuggi dwellers about the joint survey to be conducted in the said basti. However, in exceptional circumstances, the above said notice period can be relaxed by CEO, DUSIB.

(ii) After the expiry of notice period, joint survey by a team(s) consisting of the representatives of DUSIB and LOA, will be conducted so as to ensure that no genuine JJ dweller is left out of the joint survey.

(iii) The survey team has to ensure that names of the JJ dwellers and their family members, who are actually residing in their jhuggis (whether they are occupying the jhuggis themselves or occupying the jhuggis on rental basis), are duly entered in the survey list.

(iv) The Joint survey teams will obtain information regarding age, gender, occupation, annual income, ration card, election I-card, and Aadhar Number etc. of each family member along with the photograph of the family in the, prescribed proforma. In case, Aadhar number of all members or its enrolment details are not available, bio-metrics of the concerned JJ dweller(s)/ family member(s) will be obtained at the time of Eligibility Determination.

(v) The entire survey process will be properly photographed so as to maintain record of the jhuggis as well as the JJ dwellers residing therein.

(vi) In case of locked houses, the joint survey team shall carry out another visit to cover these houses after a week's time.

(vii) After completion of the survey as above, a copy of the survey report will be kept/ displayed at the site for inspection/ information so as to invite claims and objections, if any, from the JJ dwellers. The claims/objections may be filed before a Claim & Objection Redressal Committee" to be constituted by CEO, DUSIB, comprising of designated officers from DUSIB & LOA, within one week of display of the survey report

(viii) After receiving claims/ objections, the same will be disposed of by the Claim & Objection Redressal Committee in a time-bound manner by way of passing speaking order.

(ix) After disposal of all claims and objections, a final list of survey shall be prepared and kept in record of DUSIB. A copy of the same shall be forwarded to the LOA, and also pasted at a prominent location(s) of the JJ basti and at the designated office of DUSIB. A copy will also be hosted on the DUSIB website.

(x) In addition to the above prescribed procedure, if any genuine case(s)is/are still left out, then the Appellate Authority, to be constituted as per the provisions of the Policy, may consider the same as per individual merit of the case.”

41. Further, the Protocol-2015 prescribes the procedure for eligibility determination by constituting an EDC, comprising officers of DUSIB (preferably at the Deputy Director level), officers of the land-owning agency, and, if necessary, representatives of the concerned ERO25 /AERO26. The EDC is vested with the jurisdiction to determine the eligibility of the concerned JJ dwellers in accordance with the criteria laid down in the 2015 Policy. Likewise, the Protocol- 2015 also sets out measures to be followed post-survey.

42. To cut the long story short, there is considerable merit in the plea advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/DDA that the aforesaid protocols have been duly and scrupulously followed throughout the survey process. This adherence was ratified in the Authority meeting vide Item No. 64/2018, wherein the policy on in-situ slum redevelopment and rehabilitation on a ‘PPP’ mode in Delhi was approved. It was directed that the eligibility of beneficiaries covered under the policy would be strictly in accordance with the DUSIB policy dated 11.12.2017, including any subsequent amendments made by DUSIB. The following proposal was put forward for consideration and duly accepted: - “i) To accord ex post facto approval for constitution of the Appellate Authority on the line of Delhi Slum Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (Part-A & B) and adoption of the Standard Operating Protocol for Appellate Authority w.e.f. 22.09.2017.

(ii) To accord approval for replacing the constitution of

Appellate Authority in Annexure-VIII of Authority Resolution NO. 33/2017 as under: a) DDA will constitute an Appellate Authority for redressal of the grievances related to the determination of eligibility for allotment of alternative dwelling unit for rehabilitation and relocation of JJ dwellers. The Appellate Authority will consist of the following: i) Retired Judge of the level of Additional District Judge; ii) Retired civil servant of level of Joint Secretary to Government of India.

25 Electoral Registration Officer 26 Assistant Electoral Registration Officer iii) An expert member to be nominated by Vice Chairman, DDA, and iv) Deputy Director, DDA to be nominated by Vice Chairman, DDA as convener iii) To accord approval for exercising the powers of CEO, DUSIB in DUSIB Policy with regard to determination of eligibility of JJ dwellers and Standard Operating Protocol for Appellate Authority by VC, DDA for Kathputli Colony in-situ Development Project and other in-situ development projects of DDA. iv) To accord approval for not reopening the appeals already allowed/rejected by the Appellate Authority and accepted by the then Principal Commissioner (Housing/PMAY) and Commissioner (Pers./Housing).”

43. Evidently, the eligibility criteria for alternative dwelling units for relocation and rehabilitation of a JJ dwellers have been clearly defined. To qualify, a JJ dweller must be a citizen of India and at least 18 years of age. Additionally, the JJ bastis should have been in existence prior to 01.01.2006, while the cut-off date for continuous residence in the JJ cluster to become eligible for rehabilitation was set as 01.01.2015. During the Authority meeting held on 14.12.2018, the protocol for removal of Jhuggi and JJ Bastis on DDA land was discussed and the following provisions were laid down:

01.01.2006. If the JJ basti was in existence prior to 01.01.2006, then the proposal will be placed before the Authority for inprinciple approval for removal of the Jhuggis and JJ basti.

(iv) After in principle approval of the Authority, the LM

Department will conduct a survey and determine the eligibility of JJ dwellers for rehabilitation as per the policy along with the representative(s) of LOA. However, in special circumstances, the survey may be initiated even obtaining in-principle approval of the Authority, on case to case basis, with the approval of VC, DDA.

(v) If the LM Department ascertains that the JJ Basti came into existence after 01-01-2016, the LOA will be intimated accordingly to enable it to take necessary action for removal, in consonance with the law and rules in vogue.

(i) LM Depat. DDA shall paste a notice for conducting the survey, at least four weeks in advance, at conspicuous places in the JJ basti in order to inform the jhuggi dwellers about the joint survey to be conducted in the said basti. However, in exceptional circumstances, the above said notice period can be relaxed by PC/LM-LD/CLM.

(ii) After the expiry of notice period, joint survey by a team(s) consisting of the representatives of DDA, will be conducted so as to ensure that no genuine JJ dweller is left out of the joint survey.

(iii) The survey team has to ensure that names of the JJ dwellers and their family members, who are actually residing in their jhiggis (whether they are occupying the jhuggis themselves or occupying the jhuggis on rental basis), are duly entered in the survey list.

(iv) The survey …will obtain information regarding age, sender, occupation, annual income, ration card, election I-card and Aadhar Number etc. of each family member along with the photograph of the family in the prescribed proforma. In case, Aadhar numbers of all members or its enrollment details are not available, bio-metrics of the concerned JJ dwellers/family member(s) will be obtained at the time of Eligibility Determination.

(v) The entire survey process will be properly photographed so as to maintain record of the jhuggi as well as the JJ dwellers ….

(vi) In case of locked houses, the joint survey team shall carry out another visit to cover those houses after week’s time.

(vii) After completion of the survey as above, a copy of the survey report will be kept/displayed at the site for inspection/ Information so as to invite claims and objections, if any, from that JJ dwellers. The claims/objections may be placed before Clam & Objection Redressal Committee to be constituted by PC/LM-LD/CLM, comprising of designated officers from LM/LD Department, wil……of display of the survey report.

(viii) After receiving claims/objections, the same will be disposed of by the Claim & Objection Redressal Committee in a timebound manner by way of passing speaking order.

(ix) In addition to the above prescribed procedure, if any genuine case(s) is/are left out, the then Appellate Authority to be constituted as per the provisions of the Policy, may consider the same as per individual …of the case.

(i) PC/LM-LD/CLM, DDA will constitute three member Eligibility

Determination Committee (EDC) comprising of officer of LM- LD/DDA (preferably Dy. Director Level), to determine the eligibility of the JJ dweller. PC/LM-LD/CLM may … any suitable mechanism/procedure and/or modify/reconstitute the EDS, as per the exigencies of the work.

(ii) Thereafter, a detailed programme will be drawn by the LM

Department, DDA including the holding of a pre-camp at the site to facilitate filling up the requisite application form along with the necessary documents to be submitted before the EDC. The schedule for holding eligibility determination will be intimated to the JJ Dwellers by pasting/displaying a notice in JJ basti, mentioning the place and time to appear before the EDC along with the requisite documents.

(iii) The EDC will determine the eligibility as per eligibility criteria given in the Policy, EDC will verify the documents submitted by the JJ dweller, carry out his bio-metric authentication by Aadhar Card/bio-metric, identification by other mechanism. The JJ dweller will also be required to give a self declaration regarding age, citizenship, family income, ownership of other house/property, Etc.

(iv) The EDC will finalize a list of eligible and in-eligible JJ dwellers which will be submitted to PC/LM-LD/CLM for approval. After approval, the list of eligible and in-eligible JJ dwellers will be displayed at the JJ Basti and at the notice board of designated office of DDA and shall also forwarded to Housing Department for holding draw and allotment of flat.

(v) if any genuine case(s) is/are still left out, then the Appellate

Authority, to be constituted as per the provisions of the Policy, may consider the same as per Individual merit of the case.

C. POST SURVEY STEPS

(i) In the presence of representatives of eligible JJ dwellers

Housing Department of DDA, shall conduct a draw of flats to be allotted to the eligible JJ dwellers. The LM Department will be intimated the date and time for holding the draw and it may depute its representative to be present at the time of draw.

(ii) Alter holding the draw of lots, demand cum allotment letter will be issued to eligible JJ dwellers under the intimation of LM Department. They will be given two months time for shifting to respective flats.

(iii) After receipt of beneficiary contribution and its verification thereof, possession letters of the flats will be issued by the Housing Department of DDA to be eligible JJ dwellers, under the intimation of LM Department. They will be given two months time, for shifting to respective flats.

(iv) LM Department will fix the date of removal of the said JJ basti and send an appropriate intimation to the local police authorities for providing security and maintaining law and order.

(v) The police authorities shall extend full cooperation, and adhere to the dates so fixed by DDA for removal of the JJ basti, as far as possible. If, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the police authorities request for postponement of the removal of the JJ basti, such postponement should not be more than once.

(vi) In order to provide suitable facilities at the allotted site,

DDA will make request to the concerned authorities, as under: (a) Directorate of Education, GNCTD/ MCD will be requested to make arrangement of admission of the wards of the jhuggi dwellers in the nearby schools. (b) Directorate of Health Services, GNCTD, will be requested to set up dispensary/ Mohalla Clinic in the vicinity of the flats, if not already available.

(c) Request will be made to open Kendriya Bhandar/Cooperative store to cater to the basic daily needs of the jhuggi dwellers, if not available in the vicinity.

(d) Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) will be responsible to make arrangements of DTC buses. (e) Delhi Jal Board shall facilitate the availability of drinking water and sewage facilities in the flats to be allotted.

STEPS AND PRECUATIONS TO BE FOLLOWED DURING REMOVAL OF JHUGGIS AND JJ BASTIS.

(i) DDA will prepare a schedule for removal of jhuggis and JJ

(ii) DDA shall paste(s) notice for eviction and removal of the JJ basti, under intimation to the DDA, Announcement (s) through Public Address System (PAS) will also be made at the site.

(iii) All the JJ Dwellers, who have been issued the possession letters will be asked to demolish their respective jhuggis on the date and time fixed by LM, DDA. After demolition of the said jhuggis which will be photographed, demolition slips will be issued by LM, DDA and, on presentation of those demolition slips of the site of alternative accommodation, possession of the flats will be handed over to them by DDA.

(iv) LM, DDA and LOA will work in close coordination with each other, at the time of removal of JJ basti to accomplish the task.

(v) if the jhuggi(s) is/are not demolished by the JJ dweller(s) himself/ themselves the same will be demolished and photographed/video graphed by DDA. Moreover, LM, DDA shall issue demolition slips indicating the fact that the jhuggi(s) has/have been physically demolished to those who had been issued possession letters.

(vi) DDA will facilitate transportation of household articles/belongings of eligible JJ dwellers to the place of alternative accommodation, if necessary.

(vii) After following the above process, the DDA will demolish the jhuggis/JJ Basti with the use of appropriate force, if required, with the help of police.

(viii) The demolition/shifting shall not be carried out during night, Annual Board Examination or during extreme weather conditions.

(ix) As far as practicable, DDA will provide potable water, sanitisation and basic health facilities at the site of demolition of the jhuggis.

STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED POST REMOVAL OF JHUGGIS AND JJ BASTIS.

(i) Those JJ dwellers who are not found eligible, as per the policy, will be advised to clear the land, if necessary, with the assistance of Police

(ii) After the removal/demolition of JJ basti, the vacant possession of the land will be handed over to the LandOwning Agency.

(iii) The removal of debris/mulba, etc., will be the responsibility of the LOA.

(iv) The vacant land, so handed over, shall, thereafter, be protected by the DDA.

For removal of any difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the protocol, the board may modify any provisions, if required. STEPS/MEASURES ADOPTED BY DDA

44. Thus, the measures implemented by DDA were fully in accordance with the guidelines set forth under the 2015 Policy. Consequently, the DDA’s position that the October 2019 survey was conducted in the presence of the Jhuggi occupants, was videorecorded, and utilized a mobile application to ensure accuracy, cannot be challenged in these proceedings. In adherence to the rehabilitation and relocation process, DDA carried out a survey of the Bhoomiheen Camp, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi -110019. The SPYM was engaged as the agency responsible for surveying the designated JJ clusters. A notice dated 17.07.2019 was prominently displayed at multiple locations within the JJ cluster, informing that the survey would commence on 09.08.2019. Accordingly, a door-to-door survey was conducted from 09.08.2019 to approximately 25.09.2019 without any interruption. SPYM deployed around 15 to 20 teams for the survey, which generally operated daily from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Notably, the survey was conducted in close coordination with the local Pradhan and JJ dwellers.

45. The record further shows that the survey yielded data for 2,618 households. Subsequently, notices inviting claims and objections were posted at various prominent locations within the Jhuggi Jhopri bastis along with the survey list. It is also evident from the record that a facilitation camp was established at the DDA site office starting from 31.08.2020. Additionally, notices were displayed regarding individuals whose names were missing from the survey list or who had discrepancies in their documents, calling upon them to file their objections or claims within seven days of the notice being posted. It is uncontested that, in view of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the large volume of applications received, the deadline for submitting claims or objections was extended until 30.09.2020. In response to this extension, a total of 447 claims and objections were received.

46. It is further brought to the fore that the claims submitted in response to the notice were examined by the EDC constituted by the DDA. The EDC was a three-member committee comprising senior officers from the DDA. The committee’s mandate was to assess and determine the eligibility of the Jhuggi Jhopri dwellers of Bhoomiheen Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the 2015 Policy, which was adopted by the DDA through Resolution No. 64/2018. The EDC scrutinized the documents submitted by the JJ dwellers in response to the various opportunities provided to them. Based on this evaluation, the committee prepared lists of eligible claimants.

47. Moreover, during the eligibility determination process, the EDC observed deficiencies in the documents submitted by several applicants as per the policy guidelines. Consequently, deficiency letters were issued to the concerned applicants in early 2022, requesting submission of the required documents. Public notices were also issued on 14.03.2022, announcing a camp from 21.03.2022 to 08.04.2022 at the DDA site office near the Bhoomiheen Camp, providing claimants with another opportunity to submit the requisite documents. Despite these measures, many applicants failed to comply. Of the 447 claims reviewed, the EDC recommended inclusion of 282 claims in the main survey list, noting that their names had been omitted in the survey data despite being marked during the survey. Upon verification and approval by the Competent Authority, a final list of 2,891 JJ dwellers was prepared and submitted to the EDC for eligibility determination.

48. It is also a matter of record that from 21.05.2022, the EDC examined and scrutinized a total of 2,891 cases. Of these, 1,862 applicants were declared eligible, while 1,029 JJ dwellers were found ineligible for rehabilitation, as they did not fulfil the prescribed criteria. The ineligible applicants were granted the opportunity to file appeals before the Appellate Authority constituted by the DDA in accordance with the policy guidelines. Finally, the Appellate Authority was duly established to address grievances related to eligibility for allotment of alternative dwelling units, as per the law. CONCLUSIONS:

49. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that DDA, has substantially adhered to all prescribed procedures in conducting the survey of the JJ clusters in question. The survey constitutes a foundational step in the rehabilitation process, essential for identifying actual residents and the specific jhuggis against which claims are made. Notably, the jhuggis do not have structured numbering assigned by civic authorities, but rather bear arbitrary, self-assigned numbers by occupants, resulting in a disorganized layout. This circumstance makes locating any specific jhuggi by number inherently challenging. This Court finds merit in the plea of DDA that the petitioners’ allegation of an improper survey process lacks any basis and goes beyond the pleadings in the instant writ petitions.

50. Notwithstanding repetition, the DDA has clearly demonstrated that the survey was conducted between August and October 2019, well before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners have failed to provide any explanation for their absence from the cluster during the survey period or for their failure to approach the Claims and Objections Redressal Committee between 31.08.2020 and 30.09.2020, to seek inclusion in the survey list. Given their absence during the survey and the extended period thereafter, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the survey process. Moreover, the petitioners have not justified their failure to avail themselves of the available remedies since October 2019. It is evident that most petitions were filed only after the demolition notice was published on April 5, 2023, and even after demolition commenced in June 2023.

51. As per DDA, over Rs. 835.88 crore has been expended in the process of in-situ rehabilitation of the JJ dwellers of Bhoomiheen Camp. It cannot be overlooked that the rehabilitation process is timesensitive, and any further extension of timelines would result in additional expenditure of valuable public funds and delay the rehabilitation of other clusters and JJ dwellers. As established on record, the rehabilitation process commenced in August 2019, encompassing the survey, data collation, invitation of claims, examination of cases by the EDC, disposal of appeals by the Appellate Authority, and ultimately, allotment of flats to eligible JJ dwellers. Thus, a comprehensive and complex process spanning nearly four years has reached its conclusion. In light of this, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any cogent or justifiable grounds before this Court to warrant reopening the completed rehabilitation exercise or to undo the substantial progress made during this period.

52. There is no gainsaying that the petitioners have no vested right to seek rehabilitation, as it is not an absolute constitutional entitlement available to encroachers such as themselves. The right to rehabilitation arises solely from the prevailing policy, which binds the petitioners. The determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land. Encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy, as such a position would unduly impede public projects.

53. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Bharose v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board27, wherein the petitioner challenged the findings recorded by the joint surveys conducted by DUSIB and the LOA, which resulted in the dismissal of their representation for allotment of alternative accommodation. The facts reveal that the petitioner and his wife were unable to produce their Aadhaar Cards before the Joint Survey Committee members and, accordingly, challenged the policy mandating that the name of the jhuggi jhopri dweller must appear in the survey conducted by DUSIB and the LOA. This Court dismissed the challenge outrightly, observing as follows: -

original place, cannot be held to be entitled to rehabilitation. The documents alone, therefore, cannot be the sole criteria for making such a person eligible for rehabilitation under the Policy. Other than citing judgments, the Petitioner has not been able to substantiate as to how Clause 1(iv) of Part B of the Policy is violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Merely relying on certain citations alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that the said Clause is violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The said Clause has been brought in to ensure that only genuine persons get the benefit of the Policy and it cannot be found faulted.”

54. Insofar as the case law cited by the learned counsels for the petitioners is concerned, in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P28, the Supreme Court observed that all civil, political, social, or cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human rights, various conventions, or under the Constitution of India cannot be effectively exercised without certain basic human rights, which include shelter. Shelter is essential for the physical, mental, intellectual, and spiritual growth of a human being. Accordingly, the right to shelter encompasses adequate living space, safe and decent structures, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities and roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The decision was rendered in the backdrop of acquisition of land for larger public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act. It was observed that every acquisition by its compulsory nature for public purpose entails depriving the owner of his land and means of livelihood. It was held that so long as the exercise of power is for public purpose, the individual’s right of an owner must yield place to the larger public purpose.

55. The decision in M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame29 was rendered in the context of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. In that case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the genuineness of the respondents’ claims must be scrutinized in accordance with well-established guidelines, and where such claims are found tenable, the builders must be directed to provide accommodation in terms of the scheme for those deemed eligible. As a working guideline, the Court introduced the concept of a “means test” to identify members of the weaker sections of society, based on the present income of the affected families and by quantifying income thresholds, among other considerations. However, it is significant to note that the principles laid down in that decision are inapplicable to the present matters, which are governed by an entirely different statutory and policy framework.

56. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (supra), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of eviction of unauthorized encroachers from public land, specifically in relation to pavement dwellers. It was held that where encroachers have been in occupation for a considerable period, the principles of natural justice necessitate providing reasonable notice, typically two weeks or ten days prior to eviction—to satisfy procedural fairness. However, the Supreme Court also clarified that in all cases of eviction of encroachers, the State or its instrumentalities are not under a mandatory obligation to provide alternative accommodation. Importantly, the Supreme Court refrained from laying down an absolute rule, observing instead that whether alternative accommodation should be provided would depend on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

57. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi (supra) was rendered in the context of rehabilitation and improvement scheme for jhuggi clusters that came into effect from 01.04.2000, with a cut-off date of 30.11.1998 for determining eligibility. This Court, while interpreting the scheme in light of the provisions of the Constitution and relevant international human rights conventions, arrived at the following conclusions: “It is declared that:

(i) The decision of the respondents holding that the petitioners are on the "Right of Way" and are, therefore, not entitled to relocation, is hereby declared as illegal and unconstitutional.

(ii) In terms of the extant policy for relocation of Jhuggi dwellers, which is operational in view of the orders of the Supreme Court, the cases of the petitioners will be considered for relocation.

(iii) Within a period of four months from today, each of those eligible among the petitioners, in terms of the above relocation policy, will be granted an alternative site as per MPD-2021 subject to proof of residence prior to cut-off date. This will happen in consultation with each of them in a "meaningful" manner, as indicated in this judgment.

(iv) The State agencies will ensure that basic civic amenities, consistent with the rights to life and dignity of each of the citizens in the Jhuggis, are available at the site of relocation.”

58. In Gainda Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), the Supreme Court examined the fundamental rights of hawkers and street vendors under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that while the right to carry on any occupation or trade is protected under Article 19(1)(g), such a right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The Court further underscored the urgent need for a statutory framework to regulate street vending and directed the timely enactment of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2009. It was recognized that though street vendors and hawkers have a right to livelihood and trade on public streets, such rights must be balanced with the need for regulation in public interest, particularly in urban planning and traffic management.

59. In light of the foregoing discussion, it becomes evident that the interim injunctions obtained by the petitioners have not only hindered the timely execution of the rehabilitation project but have also resulted in a significant escalation of public expenditure, thereby causing financial strain on the State. Even assuming, arguendo, that the petitioners may have plausible grounds to assert a legal right to rehabilitation, a favourable adjudication would at best extend the scope of eligible beneficiaries under the prevailing rehabilitation policy. However, such a contention cannot translate into a right to indefinitely occupy public land or retain possession of their respective jhuggi jhopri dwellings, especially when the removal is in furtherance of a larger public interest and in accordance with due process.

MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PETITIONS

60. The foregoing discussion leads to the issue concerning the maintainability of the present writ petitions on the ground of misjoinder of parties, as has been vehemently argued by the learned Standing Counsel for DDA. It has been rightly contended that the conjoint filing of the petitions by multiple petitioners has resulted in vague and imprecise pleadings, lacking specificity and failing to disclose uniform or common factual foundations. Each petitioner’s claim rests on individual facts, circumstances, and documentation, which are neither adequately pleaded nor supported by necessary evidence. In such a scenario, it would be appropriate and legally sound to examine the merits of each petition individually, rather than collectively, so as to ascertain the entitlement of the respective petitioners on a case-by-case basis. W.P.(C) 6312/2023

61. As previously noted, a total of 34 petitioners have jointly instituted the present writ petition. The grievance articulated by the petitioners primarily revolves around their alleged arbitrary exclusion from the survey conducted by DDA. Their principal contention is that no prior notice or intimation was provided to them regarding the conduct of the survey, as a result of which they remained unaware of the exercise. It is further claimed that several of them were either away at their workplaces or had travelled to their native villages during the relevant period. Additionally, it has been averred that certain petitioners did make subsequent attempts to approach the EDC and the Appellate Authority by submitting the requisite documents; however, their representations were allegedly not considered or entertained.

62. It is evident that each petitioner in the present writ petition has sought to justify their exclusion from the survey process by citing individual circumstances for their unavailability. However, the explanations offered are vague and lack sufficient substantiation. More importantly, each petitioner raises a distinct and separate cause of action based on different factual matrices. The conjoint filing of such disparate claims, without establishing a commonality of facts or legal grounds, renders it impracticable for this Court to effectively adjudicate upon the individual claims of each petitioner in a consolidated manner.

63. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the law is well-settled that where the adjudication of disputed questions of fact is required, the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, is not appropriate. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman, GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) v. Smt. Sukamani Das30, wherein a writ petition seeking compensation for the electrocution death of the petitioner’s husband was entertained by the High Court. The Supreme Court disapproved of such adjudication in writ jurisdiction, noting that the matter involved disputed questions of fact, including the cause of snapping of a live wire, which were better suited for resolution through a civil suit. Similarly, in Harpati v. State of NCT of Delhi31, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the existence of contentious factual disputes militates against the maintainability of a writ petition, especially when alternative remedies or appropriate forums for fact-finding are available, and it was held as follows: - “18. The aforesaid judgment has been relied/reiterated by the Apex Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC

1 wherein it observed as follows:

19. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 has held as under:

20. Subsequently, in Union of India v. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:

no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallised. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of joint survey report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e. arbitration and not by the writ court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads.”

21. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., (2023) 2 SCC 703, while dealing with the issue of exercise of writ jurisdiction by a Court in matters arising out of a contract, has stated: “82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided, and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the writ court even deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit.” (emphasis supplied)

64. In Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra32, the Supreme Court deprecated the interference by the High Court in a matter involving disputed questions of title while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court had reversed concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent authorities, which had held the appellant corporation to be the owner of the disputed land, and proceeded to decide the issue of mutation. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, holding that the question of title, being a complex factual matter, ought to be determined by an appropriate forum in accordance with law. It was categorically held that such disputes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and must be adjudicated in a properly instituted civil proceeding.

65. Reverting back to the instant matter, the lone petitioners in W.P.(C) 7832/2023, 169/2024 and 357/2024 assail the survey conducted by the DDA through SPYM. While in W.P.(C) 7832/2023, the petitioner claims that he was unaware of any survey as he was always at work or had gone to native village, the remaining two petitioners claim that they had been suffering from life threatening diseases and either been taking medical treatment or had returned to their native village.

66. Interestingly, in W.P.(C) 12348/2023, the petitioners, Ram Dev Rai and Dhirender Rai, who claim to be residents of Block-A, Jhuggi Nos. A-159 and A-158 respectively, have contended that their names appeared in the survey lists of 2019 and 2022, yet they have not been rehabilitated to date. In response, DDA has submitted that the motherin-law of petitioner Ram Dev Rai had already been allotted an alternative flat, a material fact which has been deliberately concealed in the pleadings. Additionally, it has been pointed out that petitioner Ram Dev Rai was not found to be residing at the site during the survey that commenced in August 2019. A similar position has been taken in respect of petitioner Dhirender Rai, to the effect that he too was not found residing at the site during the said survey.

67. The above discussion brings out to the fore that there is no uniformity or commonality in the facts and circumstances of each petitioner and even supporting documents are on different tangent. It is but manifest that the petitioners have filed composite petition to circumvent their obligation to substantiate their claims individually as required under the applicable policy. The petitioners apparently have not availed the alternate remedies available to them under Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, as approved by the DDA and despite intimation of the list whereby their names were not found during the survey on 31.08.2020, belatedly these petitions have been filed and thereby delaying completion of entire project. W.P.(C) 169/2024

68. The petitioner has not cared to assign any reason as to why he was not able to respond when survey commenced from August, 2019. No reasons are assigned as to why he was not present at his residence. Likewise, no reasons have been assigned as to why despite display of final survey list on 31.08.2020, he failed to respond and take appropriate remedies in law. The only plea taken on his behalf of is that since the process of rehabilitation has not yet final, the DDA shall not face any prejudice in case a re-survey is conducted.

69. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petitions bearing Nos. W.P.(C) 12348/2023, W.P.(C) 12981/2023, W.P.(C) 6312/2023, W.P.(C) 7832/2023, W.P.(C) 8070/2023, W.P.(C) 15906/2023, W.P.(C) 169/2024, W.P.(C) 8569/2023, W.P.(C) 2277/2024 and W.P.(C) 357/2024 are hereby dismissed. Accordingly, all pending applications stands dismissed.

1. 12348/2023 Petitioner no.1- Ram Dev Rai, S/o: Late Sh. Bulaki Rai, R/o: A-159, Bhoomiheen Camp, Govindpuri, Delhi-110019 Petitioner no.2- Dhirender Rai, S/o: Sh Rambabu Rai, A-158, Bhoomiheen Camp,

2. 12981/2023 Petitioner- Prem Bala, W/o Shri Khagen Burman, R/o C-152 Bhoomiheen Camp,

3. 6312/2023 Petitioner no. 1- Govinda, S/o Verender Datta, R/o C-8 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Delhi- 110019 Petitioner no. 2- Hiramati Sarkar, W/o Sapon Sarkar, R/o B-119 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Delhi- 110019 Petitioner no. 3- Shakuntla, W/o Om Prakash, R/o D-207 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Petitioner no. 4- Manju Devi, W/o Nand Lal, R/o B-347 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Petitioner no. 5- Farzana Khatoon, W/o Mohd. Azeez, R/o A-23, G/F Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Delhi- 110019 Petitioner no. 6- Mala Matubar, W/o Sanjith Matubar, R/o A-379 Bhoomiheen Camp, Petitioner no. 7- Sunali Barman, W/o Mintu Barman, R/o A-287 Bhoomiheen Camp, Petitioner no. 8- Geeta, W/o Uday Shankar, R/o C-188 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Petitioner no. 9- Devashish Saha, S/o Sushanto Saha, R/o A-261 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji Petitioner no. 10- Suresh, S/o Sohan Lal, R/o B-64 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Delhi- Petitioner no. 11- Ashok, S/o Sohan Lal, R/o B-64 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Delhi- Petitioner no. 12- Aarti Das, W/o Jateen Das, R/o A-257 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Petitioner no. 13- Sunita Burman, W/o Babloo Burman, R/o C-321 Bhoomiheen Camp, Petitioner no. 14- Chandni, W/o Anil Kumar, R/o D-207 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Petitioner no. 15- Giribala Das, W/o Sanyasi Das, R/o C-551 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji Petitioner no. 16- Shobha Devi, W/o Rajesh Kumar, R/o D-34 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji Petitioner no. 17- Sanjay Patro, S/o Badal Patro, R/o C-6 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji Petitioner no. 18- Sirballam, S/o Prem Singh, R/o B-33 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Petitioner no. 19- Satya Prakash, S/o Ganesh Prasad, R/o B-87 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji Petitioner no. 20- Subroto Haldar, S/o Deepak Haldar, R/o C-13 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji Petitioner no. 21- Arjun Kumar Srivastava, S/o Ganesh Prasad, R/o B-87 Bhoomiheen Camp, Petitioner no. 22- Rajeev Haldar, S/o Deepak Haldar, R/o C-13 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji Petitioner no. 23- Amit Kumar Gautam, S/o Harish Chand, R/o C-214 Bhoomiheen Camp, Petitioner no. 24- Ashad Khan, S/o Late Riyasat Khan, R/o B-328 Bhoomiheen Camp, Petitioner no. 25- Arun Kumar, S/o Ajit Singh, R/o A-22 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Petitioner no. 26- Naru Burman, S/o Subal Burman, R/o D-25 Bhoomiheen Camp, Petitioner no. 27- Nakul Burman, S/o Subal Burman, R/o D-25 Bhoomiheen Camp, Petitioner no. 28- Munna, S/o Uday Shankar, R/o C-188 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Petitioner no. 29- Mukesh Babu Yadav, S/o Shatrughan Yadav, R/o C-520 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South Delhi- 110019 Petitioner no. 30- Aman Singh, S/o Rameshwar Singh, R/o C-68 Bhoomiheen Petitioner no. 31- Kuldeep Singh, S/o Rameshwar Singh, R/o C-68 Bhoomiheen Petitioner no. 32- Arshad Khan, S/o Late Riyasat Khan, R/o B-328 Bhoomiheen Camp, Petitioner no. 33- Sanjana, W/o Late Shyam Lal, R/o C-663 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji Petitioner no. 34- Raja Ram, S/o Lash Ram, R/o A-117 Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji South

4. 7832/2023 Petitioner No.1 – Manjoor Ali S/o Allauddin R/o B-75, Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji, South Delhi – 110019

5. 8070/2023 Petitioner No.1 – Janmenjay Samanta S/o Shri Jawahar Lal Samanta R/o D-113, Bhoomiheen Camp, Govind Puri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019 Petitioner No.2 – Anima Samanta D/o Bibhuti Haider, R/o D-113, Bhoomiheen Camp, Govind Puri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi –

6. 15906/2023 Petitioner- Kanan Biswas, W/o Kankan Biswas, R/o B-480 Bhoomiheen Camp, Govind Puri, Kalkaji, Delhi - 110019

7. 169/2024 Petitioner- Anwar Khan, S/o Mr Sajid Khan,R/o C-903 A, Bhoomiheen Camp,

8. 357/2024 Petitioner- Bidhan Biswas. S/o Late Mr. Subol Biswas, R/o C-403/B Bhoomiheen Camp,

9. 8569/2023 Petitioner No. 1 - Baijnath, S/o Sh. Ram Dhani, R/o A-14, Bhoomiheen Camp, Near DDA Flat, Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019

10. 2277/2024 Petitioner- Ajay Kumar, S/o Naresh Chand Gupta, R/o A-244, Bhoomiheen Camp, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019