The Delhi High Court has held that infrastructural projects concerning essential services like medical care and fire safety must take precedence over the interests of private occupants on acquired land. While allowing the expansion of a public road in the Shalimar Bagh area, a Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain granted nearly 100 residents until May 30, 2026, to voluntarily vacate their premises before authorities proceed with demolition.
The legal battle centered on a petition filed by a resident named Saroj on behalf of approximately 98 occupants in Haiderpur village, Shalimar Bagh. The petitioners sought protection from a planned demolition drive by the Delhi government, intended to widen ‘Road No. 320’.
The residents argued that many families had occupied the land for decades and would be rendered homeless if evicted. However, the court was informed that the land in question had already been legally acquired by the government. Previous challenges to this acquisition had already been dismissed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court had declined to interfere in those decisions.
The petitioners pleaded for dispossession and demolition to be stayed, citing the long duration of their residence. They sought to protect their homes from the government’s expansion plans.
Representing the Delhi government, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, along with Legal Aid Counsel Dheeraj Kumar Singh and Standing Counsel Sanjay Kumar Pathak, argued that the road widening was essential. They emphasized that the current bottlenecks hamper the flow of traffic and, more critically, obstruct emergency vehicles like ambulances and fire engines from reaching nearby hospitals and schools.
In its order dated April 6, the High Court emphasized that the delay in infrastructure projects is “detrimental to the larger interests” of the community.
The Bench observed:
“The expansion of infrastructural projects, especially those concerning access to essential services, such as medical care, education and fire safety, ought not to be delayed any further, as such delay would be detrimental to the larger interests of the residents of Shalimar Bagh.”
The court further noted that while the occupants had been there for a long time, their private interests must yield to the broader needs of the public:
“This court is of the view that the widening of the road cannot be delayed any further. The residents have to ensure that the same is also not hampered or obstructed in any manner.”
The court declined to stop the demolition but provided a grace period for the residents to relocate. It directed that the occupants shall not be dispossessed until May 30, 2026.
The court ruled:
“Upon the expiry of the aforesaid period, that is, May 30, 2026, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the expansion of road No. 320 and remove all the encroachments and unauthorised constructions.”
Furthermore, the court directed the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to consider the residents’ requests for ex-gratia compensation in a “sympathetic manner” and to take a decision in accordance with the law. The protection from demolition remains conditional on the petitioners’ cooperation with the authorities.
