Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Demolition Of Pakistani-Hindu Refugee Camp At Majnu Ka Tila, Says No Right To Occupy Area
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a direction on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) not to disturb or demolish the Pakistani-Hindu refugee camp at city's Majnu Ka Tila till some alternative piece of land is allotted to the residents. Justice Dharmesh Sharma rejected the plea filed by one Ravi Ranjan Singh, saying that he and other similarly placed refugees have "no right...
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a direction on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) not to disturb or demolish the Pakistani-Hindu refugee camp at city's Majnu Ka Tila till some alternative piece of land is allotted to the residents.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma rejected the plea filed by one Ravi Ranjan Singh, saying that he and other similarly placed refugees have "no right to continue to occupy the area in question".
The Court vacated the interim order passed on March 13 last year which granted interim relief to Singh and directed the DDA not to take any coercive action against him.
In his plea, Singh also prayed that DDA may be directed to make embankments along Yamuna river so that such colonies and religious structures may be protected as is the case of Akshardham Temple and Common Wealth Games Village and sanctity of the river Yamuna may also be maintained.
Rejecting the plea, the Court observed that the Pakistani refugees cannot be rehabilitated under the DUSIB Policy on account of their foreign nationality status.
The Court impressed upon the petitioner as well as the other refugees to firstly acquire Indian citizenship by way of registration or naturalisation by submitting an application under Section 10A of the CAA, 2019, which can even be done online with ease.
It added that if need be, the aggrieved parties can approach the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority to comply with the necessary legal formalities.
“Needless to state, the effect of the acceptance of such an application would be that the aggrieved refugees shall be deemed citizens of India and would be able to enjoy all rights and benefits available to any ordinary citizen of India,” the Court said.
Justice Sharma observed that it is undeniable that even Indian citizens cannot claim alternate allotment as an absolute right, particularly in cases where the land they occupy falls under specially prohibited areas like Zone 'O' of Delhi, i.e., the Yamuna floodplains.
The Court noted that the camp set up by the refugees in question was situated in the Yamuna floodplains area and that the NGT has issued stringent and robust directions to several governmental agencies like the DDA, to repossess those areas being part of the floodplains that are under the unauthorised occupation of any person or body, and thereafter take steps to restore the ecological health of the river Yamuna.
“Given the critical condition of the Yamuna River, this Court unhesitatingly finds that no interference with the ongoing restoration and rejuvenation efforts of the river can be countenanced at the petitioner's instance. This stance holds irrespective of any humanitarian or sympathetic considerations advanced before the Court, as such indulgence would inevitably obstruct and delay the timely and effective implementation of the aforementioned public projects,” the Court said.
It added that the Court made sincere efforts to engage with the concerned authorities to facilitate the rehabilitation and relocation of the refugees. However, the efforts were unfruitful, due to a “classic case of bureaucratic buck-passing” particularly on the part of Union of India.
“Nevertheless, this Court cannot undertake the exercise of framing a policy to ameliorate the plight of the refugees,” it said.
Title: RAVI RANJAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 645