The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking to prevent the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from evicting approximately 800 Pakistani Hindu refugees residing in a camp at Majnu Ka Tila.

The court emphasized the ecological sensitivity of the Yamuna floodplains, where the settlement is located, and ruled that no legal entitlement exists for the refugees to continue living on the restricted land.

A bench led by Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that the rights of the petitioners must be balanced against the binding directions of the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which mandate the preservation of ecologically fragile zones. “These directives aim to preserve ecological integrity and secure the fundamental human right to a clean and healthy environment for the residents of Delhi and future generations,” the court stated.

The petitioners, represented by Advocates RK Bali and Meghna Bali, relied on the 2013 case Nahar Singh v Union, arguing that the government had previously supported similarly placed Pakistani nationals. The court, however, clarified that the cited order did not establish a legal right to alternative accommodation.

Representing the DDA, Standing Counsel Prabhsahay Kaur informed the court that the area falls within Zone ‘O’ under the Delhi Master Plan, where construction and habitation are prohibited due to environmental concerns. The bench acknowledged the conflict between judicial restraint in humanitarian matters and the environmental mandates of the NGT, and had, in its interim order dated September 10, 2024, directed the Union of India to explore suitable relocation options.

In response, the Ministry filed an affidavit in May 2025, referring to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. However, the bench noted that the Act does not confer land rights or resettlement benefits until citizenship is formally granted. It also observed that under the 2015 Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Policy, only Indian citizens qualify for relocation benefits—thus excluding the petitioners from eligibility.

Reiterating that environmental protection must take precedence even over humanitarian concerns, especially in protected areas, the court concluded there was no legal basis for the petition. Consequently, it vacated the interim stay on demolition and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Ravi Ranjan Singh v DDA [2025:DHC:4642]
For Petitioner: Advocates RK Bali and Meghna Bali
For DDA: Standing Counsel Prabhsahay Kaur with Advocates Deeksha L Kakar, Aditya Verma, Rashneet Singh, and Sana Parveen
For Union of India: Standing Counsel Arnav Kumar with Advocate Savi Garg