Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Kathputli Colony Residents Awaiting Rehabilitation

The Delhi High Court issued protective orders in the cases of Sufiya Begum v. DDA, WP(C) No. 3286/2024 and Mushtak Sadat v. DDA, WP(C) No. 4028/2024. The court directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) not to take coercive action against the petitioners until their appeals are decided.

The petitioners, Sufiya Begum and Mushtak Sadat, had been residing with their families on the upper floor of a jhuggi in Kathputli Colony before it was demolished in 2016 as part of the DDA’s in-situ rehabilitation project. Initially deemed eligible for alternate housing under the JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy on DDA Land (“DDA Policy”), they were later declared ineligible due to the absence of separate Ration Cards, a requirement under the policy.

The petitioners contended that they had approached authorities for Ration Cards in 2014 but were informed that no new Ration Cards were being issued at the time. Further, they were included in a DDA survey and issued Eviction-cum-Removal Slips, indicating their eligibility for alternate flats. However, they were subsequently denied rehabilitation, leading to their appeal before the DDA’s Appellate Authority.

In their petitions, the petitioners argued that they possess the requisite documents and that their disqualification was unjust. They further submitted that the DDA has not conducted any hearing on their appeals nor provided an opportunity to present their case.

The High Court, in its order, emphasized procedural fairness, stating:

“Considering the fact that the appeal of the petitioner is still pending with the Appellate Authority, it is directed that till the decision of the appeal of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority and two weeks thereafter, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for removal of the petitioner from the Transit Camp. It is further directed that before the appeal of the petitioner is decided, requisite hearing shall be granted to the petitioner.”

This ruling ensures that the petitioners cannot be removed from their current accommodations in the Transit Camp until their appeals are resolved. The cases underscore the ongoing challenges faced by displaced residents in securing their entitlements under rehabilitation policies. The court’s directive is seen as a crucial step in ensuring transparency and fairness in the implementation of such policies. Further developments in these cases are awaited as the Appellate Authority examines the appeals.