Delhi High Court: Two petitions were filed seeking issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 3-7-2020 rejecting the claim of petitioners for allotment of the house in lieu of petitioner’s erstwhile occupation/possession/residence at the first floor of the Jhuggis of petitioner in Kathputli Colony Delhi. Chandra Dhari Singh, J.*, held that the requirement of a Ration Card as mandatory document to be produced before respondent as a proof to claim that first floor of the Jhuggi was a separate dwelling unit was arbitrary and illegal. Respondent should have exercised due caution and care before adhering to such a requirement and should have taken a fair and realistic view of the circumstances before it. The Court directed respondent to allocate an alternative dwelling unit in favor of petitioners subject to the condition that petitioners produce the documents as enunciated in Clause 2 of the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (PART-B).
Background
Kathputli Colony started emerging in the 1950s, as a cluster of makeshift tents in an open field on the outskirts of Delhi by a group of inerrant puppeteers from Rajasthan. In 2010, respondent conducted a survey, and documents were submitted to its officials. Pursuant to which, respondent commenced re-development of the Kathputli Colony on a public private partnership basis. In 2014, around 300 residents of the colony moved to transit camp at Anand Parbat, Delhi. Respondent formulated a policy on 2-7-2014, to rehabilitate the Colony dwellers and fixed the date for cut-off as 1-1-2015. Moreover, respondent constituted bodies wherein the dwellers of the various Jhuggis could file their claim for rehabilitation as well as an Appellate Authority which should hear the appeals and redress the grievances related to determination and relocation of jhuggi dwellers of Kathputli Colony. Accordingly, petitioners filed their claim seeking an alternative dwelling unit in lieu of their respective jhuggis.
Petitioners filed claim for rehabilitation which was rejected by Eligibility Determination Committee (‘EDC’) by citing reason that petitioners’ jhuggi did not exist and published a list of 771 ineligible slum dwellers where petitioners’ names were mentioned. Petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who stated that petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per the guidelines issued by respondent, however, EDC wrongly and illegally rejected their claim. Hence, the Appellate Authority set aside the communication by EDC and directed respondent to make allotment in petitioners’ favour. Pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Nodal Officer of respondent took suo-moto cognizance of the matter and declared that petitioners had failed to fulfil eligibility criteria as stated in DDA Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 since petitioners’ claim was for the first floor for which the separate Ration Card was not produced by petitioners. The order of the Appellate Authority was set- aside by the Nodal Officer of respondent. Aggrieved by which petitioners filed the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that petitioners’ contention that they had been wrongly held ineligible by EDC for rehabilitation because they did not have the ration card. It was contended by petitioners that they had all other documents as mandated by the Rehabilitation Scheme before the cut-off and possession of ration card was not a mandatory condition. The Court noted that it was evident from the impugned orders that respondent’s competent authority observed that since the jhuggis of petitioners were on the first floor, and as per the rules, all the jhuggi holders, whose jhuggi was on first floor, had to furnish Ration card. However, petitioners did not have a separate Ration card, hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority which held that petitioners were eligible for rehabilitation was passed in contravention of the Policy. Accordingly, the order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside.
The Court observed that the Policy as per which respondent adjudicated the eligibility of a claimant to rehabilitation was Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (PART-B). The policy delineates eligibility criteria for the allotment of alternative dwelling units to rehabilitate and relocate Jhuggi Jhopri dwellers. To qualify for the same, the Jhuggi Jhopri dwellers must be Indian citizens aged 18 or above, residing in a basti established before 1-1-2006, with a cut-off date for residency eligibility of 1-1-2015.
Additionally, their names must appear in voter lists from 2012 to 2015 and in a joint survey conducted by DUSIB and the Land-Owning Agency. It was mandated that there was verification in terms of biometric authentication via Aadhar Card or other mechanisms, along with possession of one of twelve specified documents issued before 1-1-2015. The specified documents for eligibility encompass passports, ration cards with photographs, electricity bills, driving licenses, identity cards issued by government bodies, passbooks from public sector banks or post offices, and various certificates such as SC/ST/OBC, pension, freedom fighter, physically handicapped, and health insurance scheme cards. Identity cards issued by government schools or certificates attested by school principals for descendants of JJ dwellers were also acceptable.
The Court noted that the term “Ration Card” was defined in Section 2(16) of National Food Security Act, 2013 as “a document issued under an order or authority of the State Government for the purchase of essential commodities from the fair price shops under the Targeted Public Distribution System”. Hence, as per the definition of the Ration Card, the intent of issuing the same was that it aimed to distribute the essential food items by way of the fair price shops. Therefore, it did not amount to becoming identity proof of residence for any Ration Card holder.
The Court noted that the Gazette Notification No. G.S.R. 213(E) dated 20-3-2015 issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, disallowed the use of ration card as a document of identity or proof of residence. Hence, ration card was issued exclusively for obtaining essential commodities from shops under the public distribution system and could not be considered as proof of address or residence. Moreover, there was no mechanism set up by the authority issuing Ration Cards to ensure that the holder of the ration card was staying at the address mentioned in the ration card. Therefore, respondent had wrongly put reliance on the ration card as proof of address since it did not take into consideration the Gazette Notification, definition of ration card and the intent behind issuance of the same.
The Court opined that mere non-issuance of a Ration Card could not be a ground for denial of the alternative allotment to petitioners. Respondent should have introspected into the issue and accordingly, should have taken steps to alleviate issues faced by the poor dwellers of the Kathputali Colony. The mandatory requirement of a separate ration card was very arbitrary since it could not be used as address proof as directed by way of the Gazette Notification. The Court relied on Udal v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9715 and opined that respondent’s actions were in clear violation of petitioners’ right to shelter as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the Nodal Officers and upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority which held that petitioners were in possession of other documents as stipulated by Clause 2 of the Policy and the documents were issued before the cut-off date, hence, petitioners were entitled for an alternative dwelling unit and their claims should be admitted by respondent.
The Court held that the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (PART-B) as per Clause (1)(x) had wrongly mandated that for rehabilitation of the dwellers of the first floor of the jhuggis there should be a compulsory separate ration card issued in the name of the dwellers of the first floor of the jhuggis especially in the light of the Gazette Notification No. G.S.R. 213(E) dated 20-3-2015 issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution which disallowed the use of ration card as a document of identity or proof of residence.
The Court directed respondent to allocate an alternative dwelling unit in favor of petitioners subject to the condition that petitioners produce the documents as enunciated in Clause 2 of the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (PART-B) issued before the cut-off i.e., 1-1-2015, the deposit of amount as stipulated by respondent and any other requirement as mandated by respondent.
[Mohammad Hakim v. DDA, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1705, decided on 29-2-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Sumayya Khatoon, Kamal Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel; Rajiv Shukla, Shivani Kapoor, Sahaj Karan Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Kuljeet Singh, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
