"Authorities Keep Sleeping": High Court Slams Delhi Body Over Demolitions

The Delhi High Court allowed Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan to withdraw his petition against the demolition of Batla House but granted three days to affected people to approach the court.

"We need to see why authorities keep sleeping as individuals raise structures and one day wake up and decide to demolish... we need to ensure justice," the court said.

This order came as the Delhi Development Authority refused to give any official assurance to halt the demolitions for now. 

The court said passing a general order on a petition can jeopardise case of individual litigants and court needs to hear the matter. 

A bench comprising Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia said the court cannot entertain these prayers through Public Interest Litigations and it will be counterproductive. 

When the counsel referred to the matter of Ishrat Jahan -- where the single-judge bench of the high court had granted relief -- the bench said an aggrieved person needs to approach the court themselves as she did.

The advocate representing Mr Khan said the demolition is going beyond Khasra No. 279 - the houses beyond it are being marked and notices are being randomly posted. 

The court said anybody beyond Khasra no. 279 can take legal recourse under the remedy provided by Supreme Court. 

In his petition, Mr Khan had alleged that vague and generic notices were issued by the DDA without identifying individual structures or without identifying individual structures or residents, thereby depriving citizens of their constitutional rights. 

He said though the demolition is being carried out under a Supreme Court order, the order explicitly mandates adherence to the "due process of law" -- including a 15-day notice period and compliance with procedural safeguards -- which the DDA failed to do. 

The petitioner claimed that residents of Batla House are not aware of their legal rights. And in the name of showcause notices, the DDA issued generic notices which do not comply with Supreme Court guidelines.

The DDA contends that the present petition is not maintainable as PIL. It also said that the notices it issued are not generic and are in compliance with top court guidelines. No demolition is being carried out without service of notice, it added.