JOIN THE LCW
COMMUNITY

Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, quarterly analytics report, curated expert talks, merchandise and much more. Support our work!

Sign up today

Three hundred settlements demolished in North East Delhi

Reported by

Asmi Sharma

Legal Review by

Anmol Gupta, Mukta Joshi

Edited by

Radhika Chatterjee

Updated by

Published on

February 2, 2023

May 26, 2023

Edited on

February 2, 2023

State

Delhi

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

Households Affected by Conflict

300

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

4

ha

Starting Year

2021

Location of Conflict

Shakarpur

East Delhi

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Urban Development (Other than Smart Cities)

Land Conflict Summary

On June 25 2021, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officials razed about 300 settlements or jhuggis in Ramesh and Lalita Park in the Shakarpur area of North East Delhi. The demolition drive lasted three days. Police officials, along with the officials of DDA, removed the residents from the site, many of whom were unable to collect their belongings from their homes. 
 
A plea filed by Shakarpur Slum Union in Delhi High Court sought to suspend any further demolition arguing that the DDA ought to have followed the procedure and rules laid down in the Delhi Slum & Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, the Draft** Protocol **and prior decisions of the Delhi High Court in Ajay Maken & Ors. vs Union Of India and Sudama Singh & Others vs Government Of Delhi.
 
The writ petition further stated that residents of this settlement comprise of migrant labour from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Bengal working in the informal sector and have been residing in the area since 1980 - adding that many residents were previously evicted from their original residence in 2006 during the construction of the Delhi Metro and no rehabilitation was provided to them at the time despite being eligible under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Policy. The petition requested the Court to order a survey to determine the eligibility of residents for rehabilitation under the existing policy and provisions for temporary accommodation/shelter for displaced residents. 
 
Filing its counter, DDA argued that the stay order was contrary to the [various directions](https://nmcg.nic.in/writereaddata/fileupload/ngtmatters/NGT judgement 13.01.15.pdf) of the National Green Tribunal whereby DDA had been directed to remove encroachments on the floodplains of River Yamuna to ensure its ecological rejuvenation. DUSIB and DDA also submitted that demolitions were carried out in locations other than those mentioned in the Additional JJ Clusters List published by DUSIB and that the DUSIB policy is only applicable to Clusters which have been notified. 
 
On 2 August 2022, in its judgement, the Delhi High Court ruled that a person cannot be evicted from their residence with a bulldozer at their doorstep early in the morning or late in the evening and render them completely shelter-less without any notice. The Court directed DDA to carry out further demolition only in consultation with DUSIB after giving a reasonable period to those facing evictions to find alternate accommodation and to provide temporary accommodation before embarking on any demolition activities.
 
However, the Court maintained that sufficient evidence had been produced by DDA and DUSIB and refused to order a survey to be carried out in the given area to determine eligibility for relief and rehabilitation under the Delhi JJ Slum Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. Instead, the Court placed the burden on the residents to prove their eligibility under this policy. It further directed DDA to give sufficient time to the residents to make alternate arrangements or provide accommodation in DUSIB shelters for three months. 
 
On 17 and 18 August 2022, demolitions were carried out in Thokar 11,12 & 13 in Shakarpur. According to the DDA website, 10 acres of land were reclaimed. 

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015
Section 2 (Jhuggis which have come up before 2015 to not be demolished without providing alternate housing. DUSIB to provide alternate housing on the same land or within a radius of 5 km.) 
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010
Section 9 (The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board has the power to make a survey of any jhuggi jhopri basti. The aim of these surveys is ascertaining the number of residents as well as health, sanitation and civic amenities), Section 12 (The Board has the power to make schemes for collective community rehabilitation for residents of jhuggi jhopris bastis affected by redevelopment)
Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Spolia (C.A. No(s). 21806-21807/2017, Supreme Court)
The High Court in the case had directed that before any eviction, the relevant authority must identify evictees eligible for relocation and rehabilitation. The state authorities must also ensure that basic civic liberties are ensured at the site of relocation. The Supreme Court confirmed this decision and stated that the directions passed in the High Court judgment must be complied with precisely.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, A/HRC/RES/43/14, dated July 6, 2020
The Guidelines state that the government must provide just compensation and sufficient accommodation to evictees immediately. At a minimum, the government must provide access to basic facilities such as food, water, and shelter, among others.
Delhi Development Act, 1957
Section 30 (The Delhi Development Authority cannot demolish unauthorized structures without giving affected landowners or parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Notice for the same cannot be less than 5 days)
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Forced evictions/dispossession of land

Non-rehabilitation of displaced people

Violation of fundamental rights

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Yes

Name of the adjudicatory body

Delhi High Court

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Case Number

W.P.(C) 6779/2021

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

In the matter of the writ petition filed by Shakarpur Slum Union, the Delhi High Court ruled that a person cannot be evicted from their residence with a bulldozer at their doorstep early in the morning or late in the evening and render them completely shelter-less without any notice. The Court further directed DDA to carry out further demolition only in consultation with DUSIB after a reasonable period has been given to those facing evictions to find alternate accommodation and a temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities. However, the Court maintained that sufficient evidence has been provided by DDA and DUSIB and refused to direct a survey to be carried out in the given area to determine eligibility for relief and rehabilitation under the Delhi JJ Slum Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. Instead, the Court deemed that it is up to the residents to prove their eligibility under this policy and directed DDA to provide sufficient time for those facing eviction to make alternate arrangements or provide accommodation in DUSIB shelter homes for three months.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Displacement

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Additional Information

Nature of Protest

No items found.

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Delhi Development Authority, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, National Green Tribunal

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Residents of Shakarpur, Shakarpur Slum Union

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

On June 25 2021, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officials razed about 300 settlements or jhuggis in Ramesh and Lalita Park in the Shakarpur area of North East Delhi. The demolition drive lasted three days. Police officials, along with the officials of DDA, removed the residents from the site, many of whom were unable to collect their belongings from their homes. 
 
A plea filed by Shakarpur Slum Union in Delhi High Court sought to suspend any further demolition arguing that the DDA ought to have followed the procedure and rules laid down in the Delhi Slum & Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, the Draft** Protocol **and prior decisions of the Delhi High Court in Ajay Maken & Ors. vs Union Of India and Sudama Singh & Others vs Government Of Delhi.
 
The writ petition further stated that residents of this settlement comprise of migrant labour from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Bengal working in the informal sector and have been residing in the area since 1980 - adding that many residents were previously evicted from their original residence in 2006 during the construction of the Delhi Metro and no rehabilitation was provided to them at the time despite being eligible under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Policy. The petition requested the Court to order a survey to determine the eligibility of residents for rehabilitation under the existing policy and provisions for temporary accommodation/shelter for displaced residents. 
 
Filing its counter, DDA argued that the stay order was contrary to the [various directions](https://nmcg.nic.in/writereaddata/fileupload/ngtmatters/NGT judgement 13.01.15.pdf) of the National Green Tribunal whereby DDA had been directed to remove encroachments on the floodplains of River Yamuna to ensure its ecological rejuvenation. DUSIB and DDA also submitted that demolitions were carried out in locations other than those mentioned in the Additional JJ Clusters List published by DUSIB and that the DUSIB policy is only applicable to Clusters which have been notified. 
 
On 2 August 2022, in its judgement, the Delhi High Court ruled that a person cannot be evicted from their residence with a bulldozer at their doorstep early in the morning or late in the evening and render them completely shelter-less without any notice. The Court directed DDA to carry out further demolition only in consultation with DUSIB after giving a reasonable period to those facing evictions to find alternate accommodation and to provide temporary accommodation before embarking on any demolition activities.
 
However, the Court maintained that sufficient evidence had been produced by DDA and DUSIB and refused to order a survey to be carried out in the given area to determine eligibility for relief and rehabilitation under the Delhi JJ Slum Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. Instead, the Court placed the burden on the residents to prove their eligibility under this policy. It further directed DDA to give sufficient time to the residents to make alternate arrangements or provide accommodation in DUSIB shelters for three months. 
 
On 17 and 18 August 2022, demolitions were carried out in Thokar 11,12 & 13 in Shakarpur. According to the DDA website, 10 acres of land were reclaimed. 

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for rehabilitation

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015
Section 2 (Jhuggis which have come up before 2015 to not be demolished without providing alternate housing. DUSIB to provide alternate housing on the same land or within a radius of 5 km.) 
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010
Section 9 (The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board has the power to make a survey of any jhuggi jhopri basti. The aim of these surveys is ascertaining the number of residents as well as health, sanitation and civic amenities), Section 12 (The Board has the power to make schemes for collective community rehabilitation for residents of jhuggi jhopris bastis affected by redevelopment)
Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Spolia (C.A. No(s). 21806-21807/2017, Supreme Court)
The High Court in the case had directed that before any eviction, the relevant authority must identify evictees eligible for relocation and rehabilitation. The state authorities must also ensure that basic civic liberties are ensured at the site of relocation. The Supreme Court confirmed this decision and stated that the directions passed in the High Court judgment must be complied with precisely.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, A/HRC/RES/43/14, dated July 6, 2020
The Guidelines state that the government must provide just compensation and sufficient accommodation to evictees immediately. At a minimum, the government must provide access to basic facilities such as food, water, and shelter, among others.
Delhi Development Act, 1957
Section 30 (The Delhi Development Authority cannot demolish unauthorized structures without giving affected landowners or parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Notice for the same cannot be less than 5 days)
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Forced evictions/dispossession of land

Non-rehabilitation of displaced people

Violation of fundamental rights

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Yes

Name of the adjudicatory body

Delhi High Court

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Case Number

W.P.(C) 6779/2021

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

In the matter of the writ petition filed by Shakarpur Slum Union, the Delhi High Court ruled that a person cannot be evicted from their residence with a bulldozer at their doorstep early in the morning or late in the evening and render them completely shelter-less without any notice. The Court further directed DDA to carry out further demolition only in consultation with DUSIB after a reasonable period has been given to those facing evictions to find alternate accommodation and a temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities. However, the Court maintained that sufficient evidence has been provided by DDA and DUSIB and refused to direct a survey to be carried out in the given area to determine eligibility for relief and rehabilitation under the Delhi JJ Slum Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. Instead, the Court deemed that it is up to the residents to prove their eligibility under this policy and directed DDA to provide sufficient time for those facing eviction to make alternate arrangements or provide accommodation in DUSIB shelter homes for three months.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Displacement

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Nature of Protest

No items found.

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Delhi Development Authority, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, National Green Tribunal

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Residents of Shakarpur, Shakarpur Slum Union

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Documented By

Text Link

Reviewed By

Text Link

Updated By

Text Link

Edited By

Text LinkLand Conflict Watch

Other Land Conflicts in Delhi

cross
Not a member yet?
Sign up now