The impugned eviction notice itself identifies the alternative accommodation which is to be given to the Petitioner i.e., shelter home in Dwarka, Geeta Colony, it is directed that the reliefs sought by the Petitioner would not be liable to be granted: Delhi High Court

W.P.(C) 1654/2023 & CM APPLs.6333-34/2023


The Petitioner (Jayanti Devi) a resident of a jhuggi at Bhairon Marg in front of Gate No.1, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi in this current writ petition challenged the eviction notice no. S23 (ROAD)/S.B.A. MANDAL M-321/166 of 28th January, 2023 issued by the Public Welfare Department. Petition before the JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH


The notice mentioned above required all the slum dwellers of Bhairo Marg, Opposite Gate No.1, Pragati Maidan to voluntarily demolish their slum within 15 days of information phase, otherwise, their slum would be removed with the help of police and will be sent to the shelter home (Dwarka, Geeta Colony) identified by the Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board (DUSIB), in which the maximum period of stay would be 3 months.

The Petitioner states that she had been living in the mentioned jhuggi since 2012 and also has gas and electricity connections for the said premises. The voter ID card of the Petitioner was also stated to have been issued with the address of the said jhuggi.

The ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the terms of the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 of 14th June, 2016. The Counsel contended that the Petitioner’s jhuggi having come up before 1st January, 2015, the Petitioner was entitled to rehabilitation and the Petitioner should not to be removed from the present place on occupation. The Counsel further contended that the same cannot be demolished in view of the Policy, that too without any form of notice and hearing.


The Court considering the eviction notice stated that the notice itself identifies an alternative accommodation to the Petitioner i.e., shelter home in Dwarka, Geeta Colony. Thus, the Court held that the reliefs sought by the Petitioner would not be liable to be granted. 

The Court further stated that the Respondent authorities would have to provide the Petitioner a period of one week for moving to the mentioned shelter home and it would be the responsibility of the Respondent authorities to ensure that the basic amenities at the relocated shelter home are duly made.

Thus disposed the petition along with all pending applications.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to view your judgement


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *