The Delhi High Court has rejected a legal challenge against the demolition of a slum in the Okhla Dhobi Ghat area, ruling that the settlement was illegal and a significant ecological threat to the Yamuna River’s floodplain. In his verdict, Justice Dharmesh Sharma highlighted that the inhabitants, represented by “Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi Adhikar Manch,” had no claim to compensation or rehabilitation, labeling them as “rank trespassers.”
The slum’s location has been earmarked by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the development of a biodiversity park to protect and channelize the River Yamuna. The court emphasized that the removal of these unauthorized settlers served the broader public interest, especially given the ecological sensitivities of the area.
Justice Sharma cited the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act of 2010 and a related 2015 Policy, noting that not all slum dwellers are entitled to alternative housing, especially those not in the 675 recognized JJ Bastis listed by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB). The court pointed out that the JJ Basti in question did not fall under this protection, thereby affirming the illegality of the petitioner’s occupation.
The court also recognized that such encroachments disrupted the natural water flow and contributed to recurring floods in Delhi. In its decision, the court not only dismissed the plea but also imposed ₹10,000 in costs on the petitioner for their persistent unauthorized presence and the resultant environmental damage.
The residents of the Dhobi Ghat jhuggi had claimed their settlement dated back to the 1990s, asserting that the police only notified them a day before the planned demolition on September 24, 2020, without any prior eviction notice. They contended that the DDA had not provided temporary shelter or adequate housing post-demolition, despite the purported environmental justification for the eviction.
However, the court questioned the legal standing of the petitioner union to file the lawsuit, noting the repetitive nature of the encroachments by some members even after evictions. The judgment firmly stated that the union had no legal rights over the land, emphasizing the harm caused to the Yamuna River due to the unlawful occupation.
