Thursday, December 25, 2025
spot_img
HomeStateDelhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Eviction of Pakistani-Hindu Refugee Camp At...

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Eviction of Pakistani-Hindu Refugee Camp At Majnu Ka Tila

New Delhi [India], May 31: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to halt the demolition of a Pakistani-Hindu refugee settlement at Majnu Ka Tila, citing environmental concerns and lack of legal entitlement to the land.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma, in a judgment delivered on Friday, ruled that the interim stay order issued on March 12, 2024, is now vacated. The petition, filed by Ravi Ranjan Singh on behalf of around 800 Pakistani-Hindu refugees, had urged the court to prevent the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from proceeding with demolition until alternative land was provided under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.

The court acknowledged efforts made to engage with relevant authorities for the rehabilitation and relocation of the refugees, but noted that these attempts failed due to bureaucratic delays, especially from the Union of India. Despite recognising the humanitarian concerns involved, the court stressed that it is not within its jurisdiction to formulate or enforce refugee resettlement policy.

The bench emphasized the urgent need to protect the ecologically fragile Yamuna floodplains. It noted that the proposed demolition aligns with environmental restoration measures mandated by the Supreme Court, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and earlier Delhi High Court rulings.

Stating that humanitarian issues cannot take precedence over environmental preservation, the court underlined that delaying such public interest projects would undermine efforts to restore the health of the Yamuna River and compromise the fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment.

The petition had also cited precedents like the Akshardham Temple and the Commonwealth Games Village to justify protection of the settlement, including embankments and religious structures. However, the court ruled that the refugees “have no right to continue to occupy the area in question,” and declined to issue any directive to the DDA.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments