Reader TTS

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant any interim relief against demolition notices issued to residents of the Batla House area in Jamia Nagar, Delhi, asking the petitioners to

approach appropriate authorities for redressal. A vacation bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma declined to stay the 15-day eviction/demolition notices issued to

property owners in Khasra Nos. 271 and 279 in Batla House and posted the matter for further hearing in July. Advertisement The petitioners – Sultana Shaheen and 39 other property owners –

had challenged the demolition notices pasted on their homes on May 27, claiming they were not parties to the earlier proceedings leading to the Supreme Court’s May 7 order directing the

Delhi government and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to demolish illegal properties in the Batla House area, said the petition by the affected residents. Advertisement “They were

neither impleaded in the original case nor granted an opportunity to be heard before such drastic action,” the plea stated. The residents claimed that they are genuine residents and possess

valid documents proving continuous possession since before 2014, making them eligible under the Recognition of Property Rights Act, 2019 and the PM-UDAY scheme, which aims to regularise

unauthorised colonies in Delhi. They termed the demolition action arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(e), and 21 of the Constitution, asserting that a

blanket drive without verification of ownership or eligibility amounted to a breach of natural justice. “The authorities have failed to distinguish between illegal encroachments and bona

fide property holders, GPA holders or applicants under the regularisation scheme, thus resulting in gross arbitrariness,”” the petition stated. The plea further sought restraint orders

against sealing, demolition, or disconnection of utilities until the petitioners’ status under PM-UDAY is verified and due process followed. However, the top court refused to interfere at

this stage, leaving the petitioners to explore alternative remedies with the competent authorities. Advertisement