‘We Do Not Want To Ruin Our Children’s Future’: Delhi JJ Camp Residents Resist Savda Ghevra Move

The Delhi High Court has upheld the eviction of three Jhuggi Jhopri (JJ) settlements near Delhi Race Course, giving residents six weeks to move to flats allotted to them at Savda Ghevra. The court has also directed the authorities to honour their rehabilitation commitments and constituted a Monitoring Committee to oversee the process.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on August 25 while hearing appeals filed by residents of Bhai Ram Camp (BR Camp), Masjid Camp and DID Colony. The relocation plan covers around 717 dwelling units across the three settlements. The residents had challenged both the manner in which the eviction was being carried out and the decision to relocate them to Savda Ghevra. The court rejected their challenge to the eviction process and to Savda Ghevra as the rehabilitation site, but modified the earlier order by giving residents six weeks instead of 15 days to move and ordered continued monitoring of their rehabilitation.

A resident representative, Shaista Khan, said the residents were not opposed to relocation itself, but objected to being moved to Savda Ghevra. “We already know we have to leave this place. We understand there is a policy and we must comply. We just want our fair share. We had already suggested an alternative location to you, and we even agreed to relocate to the flats in Dwarka. We do not want to go to Savda Ghevra,” she said.

Pankaj Sinha, a Delhi High Court lawyer representing the residents, said the dispute goes beyond the question of where the families will be moved. “Livelihood is the main concern, and every judgment says livelihood has to be ensured. Then education is another concern. The third concern is health care. If you throw these people 40 kilometres away, how will they go to their workplace? How will they go to their children's schools? What will be the mental status of these people?”

The residents were served eviction and rehabilitation notices on October 29, 2025, following a joint L&DO-DDA survey in January 2024. A single judge dismissed two petitions on May 11, 2026, with the same directions applied to the DID Colony case by an order on May 13. The residents then appealed to the Division Bench.

October 2025: Eviction and rehabilitation notices

The residents of BR Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony were served eviction and rehabilitation notices on October 29, 2025, based on a January 2024 joint L&DO-DDA survey. Those found eligible were issued rehabilitation notices for shifting to Savda Ghevra, while those found ineligible were served eviction notices directing them to vacate within 15 days. As the case progressed, however, the authorities told the court that all dwelling units would be relocated to Savda Ghevra regardless of eligibility status.

Sinha said the residents' objections also went to the legality of the process itself. He argued that the DUSIB rehabilitation policy has statutory force and that its mandatory requirements cannot be treated as optional. He said that if mandatory steps were not followed before the eviction began, later promises to provide facilities could not make the process lawful.

The government also said the usual beneficiary contribution had been waived and that the Central government would bear the cost of relocating and rehabilitating all the dwelling units.

How Savda Ghevra became the rehabilitation site

Savda Ghevra emerged as the proposed rehabilitation site while the residents' petitions were pending. On October 17, 2025, the L&DO sought 1,000 flats from DUSIB. At a December 12 meeting, DUSIB told the HPC sub-committee that 1,000 of the 2,500 flats recommended at Savda Ghevra had been made habitable. The sub-committee then recommended BR Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony for priority rehabilitation, a recommendation approved by the HPC on January 29, 2026.

The single judge reserved the petitions for judgment on March 30. DUSIB formally approved the Savda Ghevra relocation on April 9, followed by the single judge's judgment on May 11 and an order applying the same directions to the connected matter on May 13. Residents had also been directed in February to obtain allotment letters for flats at Savda Ghevra.

Sinha also questioned whether the allotment process reflected the way some families live together. He said two or three families may be living together in a single house, while the allotment provides only one flat to one family. He questioned what would happen to the other families or relatives living in the same structure if they were not provided separate accommodation, arguing that these circumstances had not been adequately considered.

The single judge found no illegality in the relocation and rehabilitation process, while recognising residents' fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood under Article 21.

By the time of the Division Bench proceedings, the government said 248 residents had voluntarily opted for allotment; 60-70 had physically moved to the flats and 202 had taken possession of their keys.

What the residents told the Division Bench

The residents argued that the authorities had not followed the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 or DUSIB's 2016 Draft Protocol. They said the land belonged to the Defence Department, while the eviction process had been initiated by L&DO, and argued that the Draft Protocol required the land-owning agency to send DUSIB a proposal setting out the reasons for eviction and its commitment to rehabilitation costs.

Sinha also said, “L&DO is not the land-owning agency. The land-owning agencies are the Army and the Air Force. L&DO cannot propose unless and until L&DO is authorised by that land-owning agency. The policy says that the land-owning agency has to propose. So how can L&DO itself make the proposal and initiate the process?”

The Division Bench rejected this argument, holding that the Union of India was the land-owning agency, while the land was under L&DO's management and occupied by the Army and Air Force as allottees.

They also challenged the eligibility survey, arguing that DUSIB was supposed to conduct it jointly with the land-owning agency, but that the January 2024 survey was conducted by the L&DO and DDA. They said DUSIB's approval should have preceded the survey rather than being formally given on April 9, 2026.

Why residents opposed the move to Savda Ghevra

The residents pointed to the 2015 rehabilitation policy, which provides for alternative accommodation either on the same land or within five kilometres, while allowing relocation beyond that distance in exceptional circumstances with prior DUSIB approval. They argued that Savda Ghevra was around 40-45 km away and that the move would affect livelihoods, children's education, transport, healthcare, sewage and sanitation. They also pointed to the DUSIB Draft Protocol, which requires arrangements for children's education, healthcare, daily needs, transport, drinking water and sewage at the rehabilitation site.

Shaista said families who had already moved to Savda Ghevra were facing problems getting their children admitted to local schools. “The families who have already shifted there are facing terrible problems. Their children are not getting admissions in local schools. Because of this, those children are being forced to commute daily—two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. How are they supposed to study? How will they clear their board exams?” she said.

Shaista also said that most families who had already moved to Savda Ghevra had subsequently returned because of the difficulties they faced there.

What the government said

The Union government and DUSIB opposed the appeals, saying the land was required for the augmentation and strengthening of defence infrastructure and was strategically important. They maintained that residents were entitled to rehabilitation under the 2015 policy and that arrangements had been made for relocation.

Sinha challenged the government's security justification, arguing that the state had not placed supporting evidence, an assessment or a notification on record establishing the area as a national-security zone. He questioned how the government could invoke national security without placing material before the court to explain the basis for the claim.

On the distance issue, the government said there were no suitable rehabilitation flats, colonies or available space within five kilometres of the three settlements.

The Division Bench rejected the residents' argument that the eviction process was invalid because it had been initiated by the L&DO rather than DUSIB. Referring to Section 10 of the DUSIB Act, 2010, the court held that the law does not take away the Central government's power to remove JJ settlements from its land with the required consent. On that basis, it found no illegality in the process initiated by L&DO.

What the court said about the five-kilometre rule

The court accepted that the 2015 policy generally provides for rehabilitation within five kilometres. But it also noted that the policy allows relocation beyond five kilometres in exceptional circumstances, provided DUSIB gives prior approval.

DUSIB formally approved the relocation to Savda Ghevra on April 9, 2026, while the government told the court that no suitable rehabilitation colony, flats or space were available within five kilometres.

The court therefore held that the choice of a site beyond five kilometres did not, by itself, violate the 2015 rehabilitation policy because DUSIB had approved the relocation as an exceptional case.

Why the August 25 judgment adds safeguards

The Division Bench also made clear that rehabilitation would have to go beyond allotting flats. On June 4, it had recorded undertakings from DUSIB and the L&DO on facilities at Savda Ghevra, which the August 25 judgment directed the authorities to strictly follow under the Monitoring Committee.

Shaista, however, questioned whether the safeguards could be implemented within the six weeks. Speaking to Outlook after the judgment, she said the Monitoring Committee had not yet been formed on the ground and argued that the facilities discussed during the hearings would take time to implement.

The June 4 order also directed DUSIB to set up a round-the-clock camp office at Savda Ghevra to address residents' complaints and directed that children be admitted to nearby government or MCD schools. The authorities also undertook to provide free Delhi Metro travel for one member of each family for one year.

Shaista said the authorities had earlier discussed providing free Metro travel for one member of each family because of residents' concerns about the cost of travelling from Savda Ghevra. She questioned why the provision was not separately spelt out in the August 25 order, although the judgment directed the authorities to comply with the undertakings and directions recorded in the June 4 order.

The Division Bench extended the earlier 15-day deadline to six weeks and directed DUSIB to facilitate transportation of household belongings. It also constituted a Monitoring Committee headed by retired Delhi Higher Judicial Services officer Man Mohan Sharma, with senior officials from DUSIB, DDA, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Delhi Jal Board and the education and health departments. The committee can issue directions to agencies involved in rehabilitation, with the chairperson's decision final if members disagree.

The August 25 judgment leaves the eviction of BR Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony in place. Residents have six weeks to move to Savda Ghevra, after which authorities can clear the settlements if necessary. Families warn that the move could disrupt their children’s education, livelihoods and daily lives. For many residents, the relocation does not amount to rehabilitation' if they cannot sustain their lives in the new location.