HC orders status quo on several Batla House properties
The order was passed on Monday in response to a number of petitions filed by residents of the area, who had challenged the notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in May 2025.
Some of the petitioners claimed that their properties are covered under the PM-UDAY scheme, which gives legal property rights to people living in Delhi's unauthorised colonies.
Justice Tejas Karia ordered the status quo until the next hearing on July 10 and asked the urban body to respond to the plea within four weeks.
The court had last week declined to order a stay on the demolition of unauthorised structures, which was sought by the Aam Aadmi Party legislator from Okhla, Amanatullah Khan, through a public interest litigation plea.
On May 7, the Supreme Court ordered the DDA to demolish unauthorised structures in the area.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
SC asks Delhi government to issue order declaring Lodhi-era 'Gumti of Shaikh Ali' protected monument
In a significant step, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi government to issue a fresh notification to declare the historic, Lodhi-era monument "Gumti of Shaikh Ali" as a protected monument under the law. The two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, passed the direction to the Delhi govt after hearing an appeal filed by Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri, who sought a direction to declare the Gumti as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). Suri had knocked the doors of the apex court after his plea was earlier dismissed by the Delhi High Court. During the course of the hearing on Wednesday, the top court went through some report filed by the Delhi government, including a notification and clarified that it was not 'happily (properly) worded'. 'Let the notification (to declare the monument as a protected one under the law) be re-issued by the Delhi government,' the bench told the Delhi govt. Making it clear that there should not be any illegal structures or encroachments near the area, the court asked the authorities to demolish the illegal structures, if any, inside the monument site. It directed the court commissioner to visit and inspect the concerned area and apprise the bench about the work undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued.
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Indian Express
Neither Pak nor India to be blamed, our fault is we were born: Hindu refugees in Majnu Ka Tila
On a table in a room that has walls made up of corrugated metal sheet lies a notice issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the contents of which are powerful enough to shake up the future of 800 Pakistani Hindu refugees staying in a camp in Delhi's Majnu ka Tila. 'Bhai, notice aagaya hai… ab hum kahan jaayenge,' said a camp resident while referring to the public notice issued on July 14. 'How can they evict us without giving us any alternate living space… Some imaginary lines were drawn by foreigners to divide India and Pakistan. They didn't care about the toll it would take on us… We hoped at least the government of India would care about us,' he added, refusing to share his name. The refugee camp is located on the Yamuna floodplains, which, according to the Delhi Master Plan, fall in Zone 'O', where construction and housing are prohibited due to environmental concerns. The DDA notice issued on July 14 has stated: '…the Hon'ble High Court has given judgment in favour of DDA… In compliance… it is proposed to conduct demolition drive against encroachment in Yamuna River flood plain DDA land south of Gurdwara in Majnoo ka Tila on 15/07/2025 and 16/07/2025.' Requesting that the residents vacate the area by July 14, it added that if not done, 'they (residents) will be responsible for any damage caused due to demolition drive against encroachment' on July 15, 16, and thereafter. The eviction, however, is yet to begin, said residents. On May 30, the HC had dismissed a petition filed by one Ravi Ranjan Singh seeking the court's direction to the DDA not to demolish the camp, till some alternative piece of land is allotted to the residents under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Pointing out the need to secure the fundamental human right to a clean and healthy environment for the residents and future generations of Delhi, Justice Dharmesh Sharma had said in his May order: 'Given the critical condition of Yamuna river, this court unhesitatingly finds that no interference with the ongoing restoration and rejuvenation efforts of the river can be countenanced at the petitioner's instance.' Dharamvir Solanki, who has been living in the camp since 2013, said, 'Around 1,000 people live in this camp…700 of them don't have Indian citizenship. None of them has a ration card. Some have come after the CAA cut-off date of December 2014… Why even have a cut-off date like this?' While the walls of houses in the camp are made of bamboo slats, corrugated metal sheets, or even mud bricks, the roofs are an amalgamation of tarpaulin and straw. Some houses bear the marks of recent destruction or ongoing construction, and the ceilings are a rustic lattice of wooden beams and bamboo. 'It is neither the fault of India, nor of Pakistan… our fault is we were born,' said Maina (25), who has been living in the camp for the last 12 years. 'They called us 'Hindustani' there, and they call us 'Pakistani' here,' said Shruti (40), who has recently shifted to the camp. As her child asks for Rs 10 to purchase finger chips being made by a group of women inside the camp, Maina said, 'It breaks my heart when he asks for money… I earn just Rs 100 a day. I spend more than I earn. Earlier, we would sell mobile phone covers… but a single flood in the camp takes us 10 years back. Our savings, our inventory… everything gets destroyed.' 'We didn't even have power for the last 10 years. This used to be a cemetery… finding corpses in the ground was common a decade ago,' said Mohini, another resident. 'A snake is spotted here every single day… I am scared for my children,' she added.
Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Indian Express
Let citizenship to daughter of OCI cardholders be one-off, don't open floodgates: Govt to HC
After a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court directed the Centre to grant Indian citizenship to a 'stateless' 17-year-old girl born in India to a couple of Indian-origin holding US citizenship, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has challenged the HC's 'views' on 'illegal immigrant' and 'person of Indian-origin'. The MHA, represented by government pleader Abhigyan Siddhant, urged the division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on Monday to clarify that the single-judge's judgment of May 15, 2024 should be considered as an individual case and not a precedent, meaning it may not be used for relief in other cases. The MHA apprehends that the single judge's observation on the two aspects 'may open floodgates for many other illegal migrants in seeking Indian citizenship' and 'would have a cascading effect and would dilute the spirit of the Citizenship Act, 1955.' The 2024 ruling was in the case of Rachita Francis Xavier, born in 2006 in Nidamanuru, Andhra Pradesh, to parents who were earlier Indian citizens and obtained US citizenship in 2001 and 2005. In 2019, when Rachita applied for a passport to study abroad, her request was denied on the ground that she cannot be recognised as a citizen of India, effectively leaving her with no recognition of citizenship, either in India or the US. She then challenged the action before the Delhi HC. Relying on the citizenship laws and provisions, the MHA had told the HC that she could not be considered as a 'person of Indian origin' and that she would in fact be considered an 'illegal migrant' under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Citizenship Act because she did not have any valid travel document, or a visa under which she could stay in India. Her parents were residing in India and holding Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card at the time of her birth and Rachita had lived all her life in India by then. In its verdict on May 15, 2024, the single-judge bench, noting Rachita's 'unique' position, said she would not qualify as an 'illegal migrant', and would qualify as a 'person of Indian origin'. It directed that she be granted Indian citizenship. It observed that Rachita 'has effectively been rendered stateless, thereby facing significant limitations on her fundamental rights as also universal human rights in the absence of citizenship and political belonging.' Rachita was granted citizenship on July 31, 2024. The MHA, in an appeal moved against the single judge's order, while not challenging the direction for the grant of citizenship, has challenged the judge's declaration that Rachita is not an 'illegal migrant' and is to be considered as a 'person of Indian origin'. It has said the declaration is in contravention to the laws. The MHA has submitted that the May 2024 order errs in observing that the definition of 'illegal migrant' will not apply to Rachita solely on the fact that she was born in India and has never gone out of India. Opposing this deduction by the single judge, the MHA has countered that Section 2 (1) (b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, clearly defines 'illegal migrant' which would include a child born in India and devoid of any valid travel documents. It has pressed for 'harmonious' reading of the Citizenship Act with the Foreigners Act, 1946 which cover provisions for all types of foreigners including children born in India to foreigners. The MHA has highlighted that the law already provides for visa services to children born to foreigners in India within 90 days of their birth. The MHA has stressed that the single judge also erred in declaring Rachita as a 'person of Indian origin' solely on the basis of the fact that her mother was born in independent India. Relying on section 5 of the Act, the MHA has submitted that a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin if the person, or either of the parents, was born in undivided India or in such other territory which became part of India after August 15, 1947 (such as Sikkim), with 'undivided India' meaning India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935. 'Any person born in India thereafter (after August 15, 1947) would, subject to fulfilment of statutory/constitutional requirements, be a citizen of India by birth and descendants of such person are not covered under definition of Indian Origin. Any other interpretation would lead to a situation where even a person born in Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc., after independence, i.e., after 15.08.1947, would be person of Indian Origin, which could not have been the intention of the law makers; and if such interpretation is accepted, it would lead to disastrous consequences,' the MHA has submitted. The HC has now kept the matter for further consideration on October 15.
