Delhi High Court to examine appeal of Bhoomiheen Camp residents on rehabilitation rejection
New Delhi: Delhi High Court has agreed to examine next month an appeal filed by individual residents challenging the rejection of their claim for rehabilitation after being removed from Bhoomiheen Camp in south Delhi following a demolition drive by DDA.
Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia directed that the appeals be listed on July 7 before the designated roster bench for hearing.
The petitions also challenged the green signal given to DDA by a single-judge bench of HC to remove encroachments and clear the land near Kalkaji area. However, by the time the appeals could be taken up last week, DDA had already razed several single and double-storey structures.
"At the outset, learned counsel for appellants submits that these applications have become infructuous because the respondent demolished the premises.
Accordingly, the applications are disposed of as infructuous," the bench recorded, disposing of the plea that sought urgent relief.
In their appeal, many of those removed from the camp and adjoining slums questioned their exclusion from the list of residents found eligible for rehabilitation by DDA. They also challenged the rejection of their documentary proof by the land-owning agency, due to which they were found ineligible for rehabilitation.
DDA carried out a demolition drive in Bhoomiheen Camp after HC, in orders on May 26 and June 6, dismissed a batch of petitions of over 400 petitioners. According to DDA, based on DUSIB policy, which includes dwellers staying in JJ colonies before Jan 1, 2015, 1,862 households from the camp were found eligible and allotted EWS category flats at Kalkaji Extension.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Batla House demolitions: Delhi High Court asks DDA to maintain status quo till July 10
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday told the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the city government to maintain status quo till July 10 as it dealt with a writ petition filed by seven 'long-standing' residents of Batla House against "the arbitrary and illegal threat of demolition". Posting the matter for further hearing on July 10 with other pending petitions, a bench of Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta asked the authorities in the national capital to respond to the petitioners' claim that the former have sought to indiscriminately target properties beyond the identified area and without issuance of individual notices. The petition, filed by advocate Fahad Khan, claimed that the petitioners have not been served with any demolition notices as required by law, and during a field survey, their properties were marked for demolition and were orally informed of imminent coercive action. "The threatened action thus amounts to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, the right to livelihood under Article 21, and the equal protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution," said the petition. Adding that the petitioners have not been served with any notice whatsoever, the plea demanded that the authorities should be restrained from taking any demolition action without complying with due process of law, and to maintain the status quo pending a proper demarcation and assessment under the PM-UDAY Scheme. The Delhi High Court has already passed status quo orders after several writ pleas were filed against the demolition notices, claiming that the petitioners' properties fell outside Khasra No. 279 or fell within Khasra No. 279 but are eligible under the PM-UDAY Scheme. The DDA action stems from a Supreme Court directive ordering the clearance of encroachments on public land. The apex court order also clarified that if the occupants are aggrieved by the demolition notices, they are free to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Amanatullah Khan, challenging the proposed demolition action. A division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia observed that only aggrieved residents can make a claim that their properties exist beyond the proposed demolition site. Sensing the disinclination of the court to extend any relief, the senior counsel, appearing on the AAP leader's behalf, sought permission to withdraw the PIL. In its June 11 order, the Justice Kathpalia-led Bench took note of the submission that the legislator from Delhi's Okhla constituency would inform the residents of their right to file appropriate legal proceedings within three working days, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Police have no right to knock on a history-sheeter's doors at odd hours: Kerala HC
Kochi: High court has held that police have no right to knock on the doors of suspected persons or history-sheeters under the guise of surveillance. "Every man's house is his castle or temple, the sanctity of which cannot be vilified by knocking on the door at odd hours," the court observed. It further stated that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to live with dignity, and dignity is non-negotiable. Justice V G Arun issued the ruling while allowing a petition filed by C Prasath of Mundamveli in Kochi, seeking to quash a case alleging that he obstructed police officers from Thoppumpady police station from discharging their duty. According to police, they knocked on the petitioner's door at 1.30am on April 3 as part of a night check on rowdy history sheeters. Prasath allegedly refused to open the door and also abused and intimidated police. The petitioner, however, stated that he is not a history sheeter and, even otherwise, police have no authority to conduct night-time domicile visits. He also highlighted a history of police harassment, including a false Pocso case in which he was acquitted, and an earlier petition filed against police officers that led to an ongoing inquiry by the home department. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo He contended that the present case was a retaliatory move to derail that inquiry. The public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner's name appears in the rowdy history sheet maintained by Thoppumpady police and that his refusal to step out and his alleged intimidation constituted an offence. However, the court noted that the Police Manual only permits 'informal watching' or 'close watch' of history sheeters — neither of which includes knocking on doors at night. Quashing the case against the petitioner, HC emphasised that knocking on the door of a history sheeter at midnight and demanding that he step out of his house cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a lawful directive.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Contempt case: Kunal excused from appearing before HC
1 2 Kolkata: Calcutta High Court on Monday dispensed with the personal appearance of Kunal Ghosh and other accused in a contempt of court case concerning a ruckus in front of chambers of high court lawyers at Old Post Office Street and Kiran Shankar Roy Road on April 25. The division bench of justices Arijit Banerjee, Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rajarshi Bharadwaj excused the personal appearance upon an undertaking that the alleged contemnors would appear as and when directed by the court. Senior counsel for the accused, Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, opened his argument by pleading that the bench didn't have the jurisdiction to issue a contempt rule. "The CJ on his administrative side assigned the matter to the special bench. It was not a judicial order," he argued. Citing rules under the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Act, 1975, Bandyopadhyay pleaded that the HC could issue a contempt rule on "its own motion" after hearing petitions of contempt that were moved before the bench. Bandyopadhyay pointed out that no such petition had been moved before the division bench of CJ TS Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) a day after the incident.
