Encroachers can't claim right to continue occupying public land: Delhi HC
The high court made the observation while granting liberty to the DDA to proceed with the demolition action at Bhoomiheen Camp in South Delhi's Kalkaji in accordance with law.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma said the writ petitions were not only flawed due to the misjoinder of multiple parties with multiple causes of action, but also failed to meet the essential threshold provided by the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy for being considered eligible for relocation and rehabilitation.
"None of the petitioners have any legal right to continue occupying the JJ cluster incessantly, to the detriment of the public at large," the court said in its order passed on June 6.
The court passed the judgment on a batch of petitions, involving around 1,200 people, seeking direction to the Delhi Development Authority to suspend any further demolition activity, maintain the status quo at the site, and refrain from physically evicting the petitioners from their respective 'jhuggi jhopri' clusters.
The petitioners also sought a direction to the DUSIB to conduct a proper and comprehensive survey of the affected residents and rehabilitate them in accordance with the 2015 policy.
The high court said there can be no gainsaying that the petitioners have no vested right to seek rehabilitation, as it is not an absolute constitutional entitlement available to encroachers such as themselves.
"The right to rehabilitation arises solely from the prevailing policy that binds them. The determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land.
"Encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy, as this would unduly impede public projects," it said.
The court, however, allowed rehabilitation of some of them and directed the DDA to allocate the EWS category flats.
The nearly three-decades-old slum cluster at Bhoomiheen Camp was home to migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal, among others.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
HC asks Centre to respond to AAP's plea seeking relief from rent
The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the Centre to respond to a plea by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) against the demand for rent for its party office in Vithalbhai Patel House. The notice was issued in response to a fresh petition in an ongoing case based on the party's challenge to the Centre's decision cancelling the allotment of a suite in the residential-cum-office complex to AAP. The court directed the authorities to file their response within two weeks and posted the matter for July 22. AAP told the court that the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, cancelled the allotment of a suite on September 14, 2024 and that the party was informed about the decision on January 17 this year. AAP has contended that the decision was made without prior notice, and even after it vacated the office on April 30 this year, it was illegally charged ₹8 lakh as rent. After AAP's counsel urged the court to stay a reminder notice on June 20 demanding the rent, the Centre's lawyer said the matter was not urgent as only a notice had been issued. The Centre assured the court that it would proceed in line with the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
India Gazette
6 hours ago
- India Gazette
Plea in Delhi HC to halt release of 'Udaipur Files' over allegations of promoting communal hatred
New Delhi [India], July 7 (ANI): A plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking to halt the release of the Bollywood film Udaipur Files, which is reportedly inspired by the 2022 murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Rajasthan's Udaipur. Filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Principal of Darul Uloom Deoband, the petition alleges that the film may incite communal discord and threaten social harmony. The petition cites the film's trailer, released on June 26, 2025, as containing inflammatory material. It includes alleged references to controversial remarks made by suspended political leader Nupur Sharma and portrays a current Chief Minister in a biased light. According to the petitioner, such elements could rekindle communal tensions reminiscent of 2022. The petition asserts that the trailer distorts the facts of the 2022 murder, implying a conspiracy involving religious figures and institutions, whereas the actual perpetrators were two individuals with extremist motives. The film is accused of portraying Deoband as a hub of radicalism and casting Islamic scholars in a negative role, an act the petitioner says threatens the dignity and safety of the community. The petition claims that Udaipur Files violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguard equality, protection from discrimination, and the right to a dignified life. It argues that artistic freedom cannot be used as a cover for spreading hate or polarizing society, warning that the film undermines India's secular values. The plea further objects to references in the film to unresolved legal disputes, such as the Gyanvapi Mosque case. It warns that dramatizing sensitive topics under litigation could be tantamount to contempt of court and fuel social unrest. The petition filed under Article 226 has also been lodged in the High Courts in Maharashtra and Gujarat. It names the Union Government, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), production houses and X Corps as parties to the case. The CBFC's decision to certify the film is being challenged as allegedly violating the Cinematograph Act of 1952 and related guidelines. Public Statements from Maulana Madani condemned the film as a calculated attempt to malign a religious community and weaken the nation's secular framework. He criticized the CBFC for allegedly failing its regulatory responsibilities and enabling divisive forces. He emphasised that the trailer includes deeply offensive content, especially relating to Prophet Muhammad and his wives, that mirrors previous controversies that sparked national and global outrage. Madani concluded by asserting that the right to free speech must not be misused to inflame religious sentiments. Legal steps, he stated, have been taken to hold both the film's creators and certifying authorities accountable. (ANI)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 hours ago
- Business Standard
Delhi High Court rejects Celebi's plea against revoked security permit
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Turkey-based company Çelebi Airport Services Private Limited's plea challenging the Indian government's decision to revoke its security clearance. The court said that 'once national security considerations are found to exist, it was not for the Court to 'second guess' the same.' 'As per settled law, once national security considerations are found to exist, on the basis of which the security clearance has been cancelled/revoked, it is not for the Court to 'second guess' the same,' the order said. Justice Sachin Datta upheld the revocation of security clearance of the Turkey-based firm by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) in the interest of national security. On perusal of the relevant information, it transpires that there are compelling national security considerations involved, which impelled the Indian government to revoke the security clearance, the court said. 'While it would not be appropriate for this Court to make a verbatim reference to the relevant information/inputs, suffice it to say, that there is a necessity to eliminate the possibility of espionage and/or dual use of logistics capabilities which would be highly detrimental to the security of the country, especially in the event of an external conflict,' the order said. The court further noted that impelling geopolitical considerations, impinging upon the safety of the country, were also involved. '…the executive wing and not the judicial wing has the knowledge of India's geopolitical relationships to assess if an action is in the interest of India's national security,' the order stated. There was a considerable body of judicial dicta to the effect that the State is well within its rights to take pre-emptive measures to protect and preserve national security, the single-judge bench of the High Court said. 'No doubt, the principles of natural justice are sacrosanct; however, it is a compelling constitutional truth that security of the realm is the precondition for enjoyment of all other rights. The State/respondents are indeed justified in taking prompt and definitive action so as to completely obviate the possibility of the country's civil aviation and national security being compromised,' the court said. In its petition to the Delhi High Court, Çelebi Airport Services had said that public perception cannot be grounds for revocation of security clearance. The ground-handling company also submitted that it had been given no reason or opportunity for a hearing. 'We have been carrying the operations for 17 years without blemish. Then we received a letter on May 15 cancelling the security clearance. We were given no reason and no opportunity for hearing. It is because of public perception that the shareholding of the company is of Turkish nationals. But public perception cannot be grounds (for revocation of security clearance). There are 14,000 employees working. The entire business goes for a toss,' Çelebi's lawyers had told the court. Çelebi had also argued that the Indian government's decision to revoke its security clearance was 'arbitrary and devoid of specific reasons.' The Ministry of Civil Aviation, acting through the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), withdrew Çelebi's clearance on 15 May 2025, invoking national security grounds. The move came amid mounting diplomatic tensions after Turkey supported Pakistan during hostilities involving Operation Sindoor. At least seven airports in the country cancelled the services of Çelebi and its subsidiaries. Çelebi challenged the contract cancellations before the High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Gujarat, besides challenging the security revocation before the Delhi High Court. While the pleas are pending in the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, the Madras High Court had in June granted interim protection to Çelebi Ground Services Chennai under Section 9 (interim protection to parties) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Background Çelebi, a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of Turkish parent company Çelebi Aviation Holding, argued that the government's order lacked any prior notice or opportunity to respond. The company described the justification as 'vague' and 'unsubstantiated,' asserting that such actions jeopardise foreign investor confidence and threaten the livelihoods of Indian employees. 'Technically, it's an Indian company. There has to be a reasonable cause. We were not given prior notice,' Çelebi told the court. The company also clarified that while it has Turkish ownership, operational and managerial control of its Indian entity is handled by an India-based team, and that it has maintained a clean track record for over a decade at major airports. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, expressed national security concerns over the firm's presence, and said, 'The enemy can try 10 times and succeed once; a country has to succeed all the time.' 'In cases of civil aviation and national security, there cannot be a doctrine of proportionality,' he added. He also submitted that the individuals employed by the company in question, who are deployed at airports, have access to every corner of the airport as well as the aircraft. 'The government had inputs that it would be hazardous in this scenario, in which the country is in, to leave this activity in the hands of this company,' he said. Mehta maintained that the revocation was rooted in concerns over national security under the Aircraft Security Rules, particularly Rule 12. Rule 12 of the Indian Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023, grants the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) the power to suspend or cancel security clearances and security programmes. Following the revocation of clearance, Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) also terminated its contracts with Çelebi, and in Mumbai, Indothai, a domestic operator, was brought in to take over the firm's ground-handling services.
