New Delhi, May 29

A group of affected residents from Batla House, a locality in South-East Delhi’s Jamia Nagar, have approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the legality of demolition drives recently conducted in the area by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The petitioners argue that the demolitions have been carried out without serving individual notices, raising serious concerns over violations of due process and constitutional protections.

The plea was urgently mentioned before a vacation bench, which agreed to list the matter for hearing next week. The petitioners are seeking interim protection from further demolitions and a stay on ongoing operations.

What the Petition Alleges

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the plea contends that the DDA’s actions have led to the arbitrary demolition of homes and shops in Batla House, many of which were constructed decades ago and house low-income families. The petitioners argue that no rehabilitation or resettlement framework has been provided, thereby violating Article 21 (Right to Life and Livelihood).
The plea also highlights that the residents had no prior knowledge or opportunity to respond, as mandated under provisions of the Delhi Development Act and master plan norms.

 Background

The demolition drive, part of a broader anti-encroachment initiative by the DDA, began earlier this month in Noor Nagar and later extended to Batla House. While the agency claims it is targeting unauthorised structures on government land, residents assert that no proper ownership verification or documentation review was conducted before bulldozers arrived.

Civil society organisations have joined the petition, alleging that these demolitions are being carried out selectively and disproportionately affect minority and marginalised communities.

Supreme Court’s Next Move

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the matter next week. While no stay has been issued yet, the Court has asked the DDA and Delhi Government to file their response and maintain status quo on further demolition, subject to the next hearing.

The case is expected to raise significant constitutional questions on urban governance, property rights, and state accountability.