Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J., dismissed the second appeal and thereby disallowed appellants claim for an alternative accommodation.
The appellants were erstwhile dwellers of a slum cluster near Kala Masjid, Delhi, who were dispossessed of their accommodation during a slum clearance drive. The appellants filed a suit demanding an alternative accommodation, which was allowed by the suit court. The first appellate court, on appeal of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, set aside the judgment and decree of the suit court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred the present appeal.
The High Court perused the record and held that the appellant was not entitled to claim as prayed for. On enquiry from the parties, the Court found that there was no such scheme or policy to provide compulsory alternative accommodation to the dispossessed slum dwellers. Taking into account the decision in Dayachand v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11774, held as follows:
- In absence of a scheme or policy, the appellant was not entitled to alternative accommodation as a matter of right.
- There is an element of urgency in any scheme/policy of rehabilitation.
On such reasoning, the Court held that the appellant’s claim of compulsory alternative accommodation could not be granted. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. [Sharda Gautam v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board,2018 SCC OnLine Del 10262, dated 17-07-2018]
