Rajendra Prasad v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ORS

$~8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 12220/2024 & CM APPL. 50855/2024 RAJENDRA PRASAD .....Petitioner Through:

Advocate (appearance not given).

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Abhinav Singh and Ms. Prapti Jain, Advocates for MCD.

Mr. Anubhav Gupta, panel counsel for GNCTD with Mr.

Siddharth Arora, Advocate.

Ms.

Shobhana Takiar, standing counsel for DDA with Mr. Prateek Dhir and Ms. Razia, Advocates for DDA.

Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh and Mr.

Aamir Faiyaz, Advocates for DUSIB.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 27.04.2026 1.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

2.

When the writ petition came up for hearing for the first time before this Court on 2nd September, 2024, it was noted that prayers 'a' to 'c' have become infructuous in view of demolition action that has already been taken place.

3.

Accordingly, notice was issued limited to prayer 'd' of the present writ petition.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Jhuggi of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

petitioner was a part of the notified Jhuggi Jhopdi Cluster, the petitioner is entitled to rehabilitation.

5.

Per contra, counsel for the respondents have drawn attention of this Court to the two vacation notices dated 28th August, 2024 and 27th August, 2024 in terms of which the Jhuggis were on a public road and were removed pursuant to orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 15430/2023, titled 'Parminder Chadha v. MCD', and W.P.(C) 10244/2018, titled 'K.C. Sharma v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.' respectively. 6.

There is nothing on record to show that the Jhuggi of the petitioner was a part of the notified Jhuggi Jhopdi Cluster and that the petitioner was entitled to rehabilitation.

7.

The action taken against the petitioner's Jhuggi was in terms of the directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 15430/2023 and W.P.(C) 10244/2018 that there was encroachment by the Jhuggi dwellers on the public street and back lanes of the property owners. 8.

In view thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provision of rehabilitation in accordance with the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and Para (2) (a)(iii), DUSIB Policy, 2015 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. Hence, the relief sought in prayer 'd' cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. 9.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

10.

Pending application stands disposed of.

AMIT BANSAL, J APRIL 27, 2026 Rzu The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.