The Delhi Tall Court, in its later judgment on Ziaul Haque & Ors. vs. Delhi Improvement Specialist (DDA), conveyed on 17th September 2024, marks a basic advancement in a delayed fight for recovery by the solicitors, inhabitants of the DBS Camp at Jangpura-B. The judgment, rendered by Equity Sanjeev Narula, highlights the complexities of recovery approaches for uprooted inhabitants and the duties of government bodies just like the DDA and the Delhi Urban Protect Advancement Board (DUSIB).
Case Background
The case rotates around inhabitants who were uprooted in 2006 when the Metropolitan Organization of Delhi (MCD) decimated their Jhuggies (casual settlements) without earlier take note or courses of action for recovery. The influenced inhabitants, numerous of whom had been living at DBS Camp for more than two decades, started different rounds of case looking for resettlement. The writ petition under review challenged the 2015 decision by the DDA and DUSIB, which denied their request for rehabilitation on grounds that the Jhuggies were being used for commercial purposes involving hazardous plastic waste.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
After closely examining the DDA's and DUSIB's activities, Justice Narula concluded that their decision to refuse rehabilitation was unwarranted. The Court noted that media articles and pictures, which served as the main proof against the petitioners' rehabilitation, were not adequate to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Jhuggies were worn exclusively for commercial gain. In addition, the petitioners' legitimate voter IDs and ration cards attested to their extended stay at DBS Camp, which ought to have been taken into consideration when evaluating their eligibility for resettlement.
Rehabilitation Policy in Focus
The Court highlighted that the case is governed by the DDA Rehabilitation Policy of 2004, which aimed to provide alternative housing to displaced residents. Under this policy, even Jhuggies that were used for both residential and commercial purposes could qualify for rehabilitation. Therefore, the respondents' strict focus on alleged commercial activity without a holistic evaluation of the petitioners' residential status was a significant oversight. The judgment emphasizes that the petitioners' right to rehabilitation should not have been dismissed on the basis of unverified assumptions.
Conclusion
This judgment may be a crucial update of the rights of uprooted communities and the obligation of government offices to guarantee their recovery. By administering in favor of the solicitors, the Court has strengthened the significance of procedural reasonableness and the require for exhaustive prove some time recently denying citizens their right to resettlement.
The case too sets a point of reference for future recovery debate, emphasizing that government bodies must regard their possess arrangements and give satisfactory thought to uprooted inhabitants. As the urbanization of Delhi proceeds, this judgment underscores the judiciary's part in shielding the rights of the city's most powerless citizens.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Delhi High Court Ziaul Haque DBS Camp DDA DUSIB rehabilitation policy displaced residents Jhuggies demolition MCD
