The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, which upheld the Delhi Development Authority’s (DDA) right to proceed with the demolition of jhuggi clusters at Bhoomiheen Camp in Kalkaji, marks a pivotal moment in the capital’s longstanding debate on encroachments and rehabilitation. The judgment rightly reiterates a crucial legal tenet — that there is no inherent right to encroach upon public land — while also making space for a compassionate approach towards those who may qualify for rehabilitation. The case, involving nearly 1,200 petitioners, sought to halt demolition and eviction actions initiated by the DDA. The petitioners also demanded a comprehensive survey by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) to assess their eligibility for relocation under the 2015 Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy. However, Justice Dharmesh Sharma, in his ruling, emphasised that the right to rehabilitation is not an absolute constitutional guarantee. Instead, it stems from policy frameworks, and the mere fact of occupation does not entitle encroachers to uninterrupted stay on public land. This judgment, while legally sound, unfolds within a deeply human context. Bhoomiheen Camp — home to migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, and other parts of the country — has existed for nearly three decades. For many families, these jhuggis are not just temporary shelters but long-standing homes built through adversity and survival. That reality cannot be brushed aside in administrative or judicial discourse. Nevertheless, the core of the court’s observation — that encroachments, especially when prolonged and unchecked, can stall critical public infrastructure projects — holds weight in an increasingly congested and urbanising Delhi.
Public land is, by definition, meant for public use — whether for roads, drainage systems, housing projects, or public utilities. Allowing encroachments to persist indefinitely, under the pretext of pending rehabilitation claims, would not only cripple planning and development efforts but also open the floodgates for opportunistic and unregulated settlements. The court rightly flagged that such a precedent would “unduly impede public projects.” Cities must grow — but they must grow in an equitable and legally sound manner. At the same time, the ruling makes an important distinction: not all occupants are to be swept away in one stroke. The court allowed for the rehabilitation of eligible residents, directing the DDA to allocate EWS (Economically Weaker Section) flats for those who meet the criteria. This inclusion signals the court’s acknowledgement that fairness cannot be sacrificed at the altar of expediency. A blanket clearance without screening and surveying would have been both unjust and chaotic. Still, the case exposes some of the persistent administrative lacunae in handling slum rehabilitation in Delhi. One of the primary grievances of the petitioners was the lack of a comprehensive and transparent survey before eviction began. While the court noted that many petitioners failed to qualify under the 2015 policy norms, it also highlighted a broader concern: slum dwellers are often left navigating an opaque system, without access to timely information or legal aid. The rehabilitation policy — however well-intentioned — is only as effective as its execution. In such situations, the onus lies equally on urban authorities to act with greater sensitivity and communication. Notices for eviction, eligibility assessments, and documentation deadlines — these cannot be reduced to bureaucratic checklists. They must account for real-world challenges faced by migrants and informal settlers — many of whom lack formal identification, address proof, or tenancy records. If the state is to assert its right to reclaim public land, it must also shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that no eligible person is left homeless or unheard in the process. Moreover, the question of encroachments cannot be dealt with episodically or selectively. Across Indian cities, informal settlements arise not out of willful illegality but from desperation — a result of skewed housing policies, skyrocketing rents, lack of public rental options, and economic migration. If policies continue to treat every jhuggi dweller as a trespasser rather than a citizen in need of affordable housing, the cycle of encroachment and eviction will continue unabated.
The ruling also brings into focus the need for a proactive, long-term urban housing strategy. Relocation policies must be revisited and updated in light of current demographic trends, with added focus on in-situ rehabilitation, rental housing schemes, and partnerships with NGOs and private developers. A citizen-centric model — where legal housing is accessible to all income groups — is the only sustainable antidote to rampant encroachments. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court’s judgment sets the record straight on the legality of encroachments but does not ignore the humanity of those affected. It is a balanced verdict that upholds the sanctity of public land while nudging authorities to follow due process in resettling the displaced. For a city as complex as Delhi, this may well be the template to follow: firmness in law, but fairness in execution. If implemented with empathy and diligence, this ruling can become more than a demolition permit — it can be a turning point in how urban India addresses the challenge of housing its most vulnerable.