Delhi High Court: Unlawful Encroachment On Yamuna Floodplains A ‘Serious Threat’

The Delhi High Court emphasized the ecological sensitivity of the Yamuna floodplains, warning that unauthorized encroachments or constructions in the area could have severe environmental consequences.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma stated, “The floodplain area, designated as a prohibited activity zone, plays a crucial role in the river ecosystem. Encroachment upon this area disrupts the natural flow of water, resulting in the diversion of watercourses and contributing to flooding in adjacent regions.”

“In fact, numerous experts assert that recurring floods in Delhi are largely man-made, primarily driven by unlawful encroachment on drains and riverbeds, which obstruct the natural flow of water into and within the River Yamuna, exacerbating the severity of the floods,” the court further noted.

While rejecting the petition by Dhobi Ghat Jhuggi Adhikar Manch, Justice Sharma clarified that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had no obligation to halt demolition or maintain status quo at the JJ slum in Dhobi Ghat, Batla House, until completing the survey and rehabilitation of residents under the DUSIB Policy.

The Court dismissed the plea and imposed a Rs 10,000 cost, stating that the DDA acquired the land for Yamuna’s protection and channelization.

It further clarified that the eviction served a larger public interest.

As per the DUSIB Act, 2010, and the 2015 Policy, not all slum dwellers are automatically eligible for alternative housing.

The Court clarified that Clause 2(a)(i) of the 2015 Policy (Part A) explicitly states that only JJ Bastis established before 1 January 2006, qualify for protection from removal without alternative housing arrangements.

Yamuna Floodplains Encroachment Deemed Illegal

“The JJ Basti in question is not part of the 675 notified JJ Bastis listed by DUSIB, further establishing that the residents of the petitioner union are occupying the area illegally,” it further added.

Additionally, the Court held that the petitioner union lacked the legal standing to file the plea, as it had not provided specific details regarding the number of affected residents or the exact boundaries of the settlement.

The Court refused to provide such broad reliefs under writ jurisdiction and held that claims of procedural lapses in the demolition process were legally unsustainable.

The Court concluded, “Further, the unlawful construction in the area poses a significant threat to the ecologically sensitive River Yamuna floodplains. Since the DDA acquired the subject site for Yamuna’s channelization and protection, removing the petitioner union from the area serves the greater public interest.”

Also Read: Supreme Court: Remarks Like ‘Miyan-Tiyan’ Or ‘Pakistani’ Do Not Hurt Religious Sentiments Under IPC