Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed a writ petition filed on behalf of approximately 800 Pakistani Hindu refugees residing at a makeshift camp in Majnu ka Tila, Delhi. The court held that there existed no legal right to seek alternate accommodation without first acquiring Indian citizenship, vacating the interim protection previously granted. The judgment cited the overriding importance of restoring the ecological balance of the Yamuna floodplains and the binding nature of environmental directions issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The court concluded that no interference with river rejuvenation projects can be permitted, irrespective of humanitarian considerations.

The petitioner, claiming to represent around 800 Hindu refugees from Pakistan, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary prayer was to restrain the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing the refugee camp located in Zone 'O' of Delhi Master Plan 2021, i.e., the Yamuna Floodplains, until an alternative site was allotted, citing the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Verandah And Eco-Parking Orders For Punjab And Haryana High Court | Aesthetic Integrity Can Be Preserved Without Sacrificing World Heritage Status

The petitioner relied heavily on a 2013 order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3712/2013 titled "Nahar Singh v. Union of India," where the Union of India had agreed to support the refugees in securing Long Term Visas (LTV). The petitioner argued that the Government of India bore primary responsibility for accommodating these refugees.

Upon initial hearing on March 12, 2024, the court granted interim relief, restraining DDA from taking coercive action against the refugees. The DDA, however, pointed to orders issued by the NGT on January 29, 2024, and October 17, 2019, which mandated the removal of encroachments from the Yamuna Floodplain.

The NGT had imposed costs on DDA and stated the urgency of restoring ecological balance. Despite expressing sympathy, DDA stated it was legally bound to comply with the NGT's directions. Consequently, the Union of India was impleaded as a necessary party.

The court was informed that, despite repeated notices, the Union of India failed to file a counter-affidavit. In the interim, DDA filed CM APPL. 40295/2024, seeking vacation of the stay. It stated NGT’s continuous directives in O.A. No. 622/2019 ("Jagdev v. Lt. Governor of Delhi") concerning the removal of encroachments in Majnu ka Tila.

On September 10, 2024, the court directed the Union of India to take prompt action regarding relocation. Despite the matter being referred between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), no resolution emerged. A notice was issued to the Secretary, MoHUA, to explain the delay in policy formulation.

During the hearing on October 25, 2024, Additional Solicitor General Mr. Chetan Sharma assured the court that inter-ministerial meetings would be convened to deliberate on relocation. Subsequently, an affidavit filed by MoHUA on December 13, 2024, clarified that while 59 acres had been allotted to DDA for necessary action, MoHUA’s role was merely that of a proforma party.

In view of the administrative standstill, the court directed the Vice Chairman, DDA, on December 17, 2024, to liaise with the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs failed to participate in the meeting convened for refugee rehabilitation.

On March 28, 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs requested three more weeks to respond. Thereafter, a short affidavit dated May 20, 2025, was filed, stating that the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, was the applicable route for the refugees to gain Indian citizenship and access to rights, including shelter.

The Ministry of Home Affairs asserted: "No further intervention is required from the side of Ministry of Home Affairs for framing any larger policy or guidelines for rehabilitation of these Pakistani Hindu migrants. The same has been addressed by the provisions of the CAA, 2019."

The court categorically held: "The petitioner herein is not entitled to the reliefs sought by way of the present petition."

It observed that the 2013 order in "Nahar Singh" merely noted the Government's intent to help refugees obtain LTVs and basic amenities during the process. There was no assurance of alternate housing: "The order dated 29.05.2013 passed in Nahar Singh (supra) does not contain any direction to suggest that an alternate accommodation was promised to the said group of refugees."

The court also referred to the "Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015" under which: "Any person sought to be relocated and rehabilitated must first and foremost be a citizen of India."

Refugees were advised to apply under the CAA, 2019. The court added: "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'."

On the ecological status of the site, the court stated: "It is an admitted position that the camp set up by the refugees in question is situated in the Yamuna floodplains area."

Reference was made to the NGT order in O.A. No. 06/12 titled "Manoj Mishra v. Union of India": "DDA to repossess those areas being part of the floodplains that are under unauthorised occupation and restore the ecological health of the river Yamuna."

The court cited multiple precedents, including directions in O.A. No. 21/2023 titled "Ashwani Yadav v. GNCTD," which mandated the removal of all forms of encroachment.

Further, a Division Bench judgment in "Court on its own motion v. Union of India" stated:
"DDA in coordination with all concerned agencies is hereby directed to ensure removal of encroachments from Yamuna River Flood Plains."

Quoting from "Shabnam Burney v. Union of India", the court hed that illegal construction on floodplains endangered both ecology and public safety.

Justice Sharma concluded: "This Court cannot undertake the exercise of framing a policy to ameliorate the plight of the refugees."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Slams University Over Withheld Fellowship | No Vice Chancellor Salary Until Student Paid, Says Court

The court unequivocally held: "The petitioner and other similarly placed refugees have no right to continue to occupy the area in question."

Consequently, it ordered: "The interim order dated 12.03.2024 passed by this Court stands vacated."

It dismissed the writ petition: "The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed."

It disposed of all pending applications: "Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly."

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Bali and Ms. Meghna Bali, Advocates

For the Respondents: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel with Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar, Mr. Aditya Verma, Mr. Rashneet Singh, Ms. Sana Parveen, Advocates for R-1/DDA with Mr. Bijendra Kumar/DD and Mr. Kamleshwari Pandit/Naib Tehsildar; Mr. Arnav Kumar, CGSC with Ms. Savi Garg, Advocate for R-2/UOI/Ministry of Home Affairs

Case Title: Ravi Ranjan Singh v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4642

Case Number: W.P.(C) 3656/2024

Bench: Justice Dharmesh Sharma

[Read/Download order]