Pakistani Hindu Refugees Cannot Claim Legal Right To Allotment Or Protection Without Citizenship; Encroachments On Yamuna Floodplains Must Be Cleared: Delhi High Court
The Court said even Indian citizens have no absolute right to occupy the ecologically sensitive Yamuna floodplains, which must be cleared as per binding Court orders.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that Pakistani Hindu refugees, until granted Indian citizenship, have no enforceable legal right to seek alternate allotment or protection from eviction. The Court further ruled that even Indian citizens have no absolute right to occupy prohibited areas such as the Yamuna floodplains, which are ecologically sensitive and must be cleared of encroachments in compliance with binding judicial orders.
A Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed, “It is undeniable that even Indian citizens cannot claim alternate allotment as an absolute right, particularly in cases where the land they occupy falls under specially prohibited areas like Zone ‘O’ of Delhi, i.e., the Yamuna floodplains.”
The Court added, “In conclusion, the petitioner and other similarly placed refugees have no right to continue to occupy the area in question. Resultantly, the interim order dated 12.03.2024 passed by this Court stands vacated.”
Advocate R.K. Bali appeared for the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Prabhsahay Kaur represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner, claiming to act in public interest, approached the Court seeking protection from eviction for approximately 800 Pakistani Hindu refugees residing at Majnu Ka Tila. He relied on a 2013 order in Nahar Singh v. Union of India (2013), where the Union had made a statement about extending support to such displaced persons. The Petitioner prayed for a direction to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) not to demolish the refugee settlement until alternate land was allotted and also sought protection under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The land in question falls under Zone ‘O’ of the Delhi Master Plan, an area categorized as Yamuna floodplain and strictly protected under environmental orders.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court held that the 2013 order in Nahar Singh did not create any legal entitlement for alternate allotment. It only recorded the Union of India’s assurance to assist with Long Term Visas (LTVs) and basic amenities pending formal processes. The Court stated, “The order dated 29.05.2013 passed in Nahar Singh (supra) on which much mileage has been sought to be drawn by the petitioner, unfortunately does not come to his rescue in any manner.”
The Court further clarified that even under the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, formulated by DUSIB, allotment of alternate dwelling units is available only to Indian citizens. “The Pakistani refugees cannot be rehabilitated under the DUSIB Policy on account of their foreign nationality status”, the Court added.
The Court urged the refugees to first acquire citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, stating, “This Court has impressed upon the petitioner as well as the other refugees to firstly acquire Indian citizenship by way of registration or naturalisation… This can even be done online… If need be, the aggrieved parties can approach the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority to comply with the necessary legal formalities.”
The Court noted that the location in question was within the Yamuna floodplain and thus governed by strict prohibitions. Referring to the binding directions from the National Green Tribunal the Court noted, “Zone ‘O’ has to be ridden of all kinds of encroachment, be it commercial, residential, or otherwise… It is the duty of the DDA to maintain the natural features and ecology of the Yamuna floodplains.”
The Court also referred to its recent ruling in Court on its own Motion v. Union of India (2024), where extensive directions were issued for green restoration and public amenity development across the Yamuna banks. The Bench observed, “No interference with the ongoing restoration and rejuvenation efforts of the river can be countenanced at the petitioner’s instance… such indulgence would inevitably obstruct and delay the timely and effective implementation of the aforementioned public projects.”
The Court opined, “This Court made sincere efforts to engage with the concerned authorities to facilitate the rehabilitation and relocation of the refugees… However, these efforts have been unfruitful, seemingly due to a classic case of bureaucratic buck-passing… Nevertheless, this Court cannot undertake the exercise of framing a policy to ameliorate the plight of the refugees.”
The Court held that the Petitioner and similarly placed refugees have no legal right to remain on the Yamuna floodplains and cannot seek alternate allotment without first acquiring Indian citizenship.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim protection granted earlier.
Cause Title: Ravi Ranjan Singh v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4642)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates R.K. Bali, Meghna Bali
Respondent: Standing Counsel Prabhsahay Kaur; Central Government Standing Counsel Arnav Kumar; Advocates Savi Garg, Deeksha L. Kakar, Aditya Verma, Rashneet Singh, Sana Parveen, Bijendra Kumar
Click here to read/download Judgment