Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

II Orders of this Court Order dated 14th December 2015

3. When the petition was first heard on 14th December 2015, the Petitioners contended that the demolition had taken place in violation of the law explained in various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court. It was submitted that the displaced persons were ―completely helpless and exposed to the extreme cold weather‖. It was argued that the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (‗DUSIB') (Respondent No.2), a statutory body constituted under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (‗DUSIB Act') as well as the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), (Respondent No.4) had been unable to provide the displaced persons with adequate relief and rehabilitation and that without any alternative arrangements, a large number of the displaced persons were being forced to live in the open at the site of the demolition. It was also pointed out that the demolition took place in complete violation of the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD) 2021, notified on 7th February, 2007.

―13. It is claimed that the programme of demolition was planned to be carried out at 11am under the supervision of the Station House Officer (SHO), Punjabi Bagh. At 10.30 am a call was received from the West District Control Room that the jhuggis were being demolished and in the course of the same, one baby had died and that help was needed. It is stated that an emergency response vehicle was sent for verification with one Head Constable Naresh who confirmed the death of a six months' old female child. It was claimed that the father, uncle and a neighbour were contacted. Reference is made to the post-mortem report which gives the cause of death as "due to shock as a result of chest and head injury due to blunt force impact. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature and possible in manner as alleged." It is stated that despite statements given by the father and uncle that they have no suspicion about anybody, FIR No. 1291/2015 under Section 304A IPC was registered.‖

63. This is particularly relevant in the context of Delhi, where there is a multiplicity of agencies dealing with the issue of slums on both public and private lands. In Delhi, most of the slums are on public land, and the agencies involved include, among others, the Central Government, the Government of the NCT of Delhi, the DDA, the MCD, the NDMC and, now the DUSIB. The Central Government itself is comprised of several ministries and departments. The Railways and the Public Works Department (PWD) are some of the major departments which are identified as ‗land holding agencies'. What General Comment No. 4 emphasises is that there should be coordination between all ministries and local authorities in order to reconcile the related policies with the obligation under Article 11 of the ICESCR. Among the remedies that Article 11 of the ICESCR envisages is the provision of ―legal appeals aimed at preventing planned evictions or demolitions through the issuance of court-ordered injunctions.‖ They would also include ―legal procedures seeking compensation following an illegal eviction, complaints against illegal actions carried out or supported by landlords (whether public or private) in relation to rent levels, dwelling maintenance and racial or other forms of discrimination‖.