+
  • HOME»
  • Supreme Court: Refused To Entertain Gyaspur Colony Residents’ Plea Against Demolition; Asking Them To Pursue Alternative Remedies

Supreme Court: Refused To Entertain Gyaspur Colony Residents’ Plea Against Demolition; Asking Them To Pursue Alternative Remedies

The Supreme Court in the case Vaishali & Ors vs Union of India & Ors observed and has refused to entertain the impleading application moved by residents of Gyaspur Colony, South Delhi wherein challenging the order of Delhi High Court with regards to their rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation policy, […]

The Supreme Court in the case Vaishali & Ors vs Union of India & Ors observed and has refused to entertain the impleading application moved by residents of Gyaspur Colony, South Delhi wherein challenging the order of Delhi High Court with regards to their rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation policy, 2015.
The bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice BV Nagarathna while keeping other remedies open for the applicants and gave liberty to pursue them.
In the petition the IA was being filed by jhuggi dwellers from Sarojini Nagar against the demolition or an eviction order without rehabilitation or relocation of the Slum Dwellers. Therefore, the said court also asked the Central Government to desist from taking coercive steps to evict them in April 2022.
As the order passed by Delhi High Court dated August 4, 2022, the Delhi Development Authority demolished the house of appellant without providing any rehabilitation to the residents. The Delhi High Court in its order dated April 19 stated for availing the Rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, the respective Jhuggi Jhopri Basti would also have to be notified by the nodal agency Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board.
Therefore, it has also been expressed by the bench its disinclination for hearing the IA while noting that the main petition which was being pending before
the High Court.

Tags:

Advertisement