Batla House Residents Must Challenge Demolitions Individually: Delhi HC
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 11th June: The Delhi High Court today allowed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan to withdraw his public interest lawsuit (PIL) against the demolition drive in Batla House. However, the court provided a critical three-day window for affected residents to directly approach the court for relief.
A bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia emphasized that the court cannot issue a general order through a PIL, as it could “jeopardise the case of individual litigants.” The judges noted, “We need to see why authorities keep sleeping as individuals raise structures and one day wake up and decide to demolish… we need to ensure justice.”
This decision followed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)’s refusal to give any official assurance to temporarily halt demolitions. The court stated that such broad requests via PILs would be “counterproductive.”
When Mr. Khan’s lawyer referred to a past case (Ishrat Jahan) where a single-judge bench had granted relief, the court reiterated that affected individuals must approach it personally, just as in that instance.
Allegations of Improper Notices
Khan’s lawyer also argued that the demolitions were going beyond the specific area covered by a Supreme Court order (Khasra No. 279), with notices being randomly posted on houses outside this boundary. The court clarified that any resident beyond Khasra No. 279 could seek legal help under the remedy provided by the Supreme Court.
In his withdrawn petition, Khan had claimed that the DDA issued vague and generic notices without identifying individual structures or residents. He alleged this violated citizens’ constitutional rights. He further argued that while the demolitions were based on a Supreme Court order, that order explicitly required “due process of law,” including a 15-day notice period and other legal safeguards, which the DDA allegedly ignored.
The petitioner also stated that many Batla House residents were unaware of their legal rights and that the DDA’s “showcause notices” did not meet Supreme Court guidelines.
The DDA, on its part, countered that Khan’s petition was not valid as a PIL. It insisted that its notices were specific and fully complied with Supreme Court guidelines, adding that no demolition was happening without proper notice.
