.png)
Court Allows DDA to Proceed With Demolition in Kalkaji’s Bhoomiheen Camp
New Delhi, June 8 – The Delhi High Court has ruled that individuals illegally occupying public land cannot demand the right to remain there while their rehabilitation claims are under consideration. The court emphasized that such encroachments hinder important public development projects.
The judgment came in response to a batch of petitions filed by nearly 1,200 residents of Bhoomiheen Camp, a slum cluster in South Delhi’s Kalkaji, seeking to stop the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from carrying out demolition at the site.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma, in an order dated June 6, stated that the petitioners had no legal right to continue residing in the cluster and dismissed the writ petitions on multiple legal grounds. The court found the petitions flawed due to misjoinder of parties and failure to meet eligibility criteria under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.
“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 stated.
The court clarified that the right to rehabilitation is policy-based, not a constitutional guarantee, and cannot be used to delay or block public works.
No Stay on Demolition, But Relief for Eligible Residents
While the petitioners had requested a stay on demolition and a direction to conduct a fresh survey for rehabilitation, the court rejected these demands. It held that public interest outweighed the demands of the encroachers.
However, some residents who were found eligible under the 2015 policy were granted relief. The court directed the DDA to allocate Economically Weaker Section (EWS) flats to those individuals in accordance with rehabilitation guidelines.
Long-Standing Encroachment
Bhoomiheen Camp has existed for nearly 30 years, housing migrants primarily from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. Over the years, it has expanded into unauthorized land, prompting government action to reclaim the area for planned development.
The High Court’s judgment reiterates that public land must serve public interest, and unauthorized occupants cannot claim protection simply based on duration of stay or pending legal processes.