Indian cities are in throes of change. There is no longer any space in it for the poor and their squalid settlements.
Characterising the slum-dweller as 'encroacher', and as being in 'illegal occupation (of government land)' has lent an assumed legitimacy to demolitions that have been unleashed on the urban poor.
By describing the act of providing an alternative site to an evicted slum-dweller as akin to "giving a reward to a pickpocket" which is what the Supreme Court did in Almitra Patil's case in 2000 the slum-dweller has, in fact, been dubbed a criminal.
In November 2002, the perception of the slum-dweller as a usurper of public land led the Delhi high court to strike down the policy of resettlement.
In March 2003, the Supreme Court, in an interim order, permitted allotments under the resettlement policy to be made "subject to the result of the petitions".
But the Delhi high court has continued to adopt the Almitra reasoning and has ordered demolitions on pain of punishment for contempt of court while rejecting the policy of relocation. The Supreme Court has, thereafter, allowed this position to persist.
As the courts have seen it, slum-dwellings suffer from the vice of illegality. This is because slums have developed on public land, which were acquired under the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Act, 1957, to facilitate the planned development of the city.
None of these lands was intended to house slums. The question then is: Where in the city is it legal for the poor to reside?
The report of the Committee on Problems of Slums in Delhi, constituted by the Planning Commission, records in June 2002 that the DDA is stated to own 25,377.2 hectares (62,707 acres) of land 17 per cent of the land in the state.
A report that the committee relies on has found that "DDA claims that 20 per cent of the residential area is earmarked for economically weaker sections/squatter populations under the integrated development project.
DDA has not allotted any land to slum and jhuggi-jhopri department during 1992-97. In 1997-98, DDA allocated 32 acres of land in Tehkhand village. during 1998-99, about 27.4 acres of land was allocated..." This is in a city where over 30 per cent of the population lives in slum colonies.
The cause of 'illegal' occupation of public lands, then, is non-performance of the state. Urban poor have created their own housing stock, with no assistance from the state. It is this housing stock that is being demolished.
When a statute such as the DDA Act, 1957, provides an authority with the power to acquire land with a view to facilitating the planned development of a city, it does not make the state or its agency a landowner.
Instead, it invests a responsibility in them to act according to their statutory duty in dealing with the land. When it does not perform as it is mandated to, it would be absurd to punish those whom it has not served. It would appear that no laws apply where demolition has been ordered.
There is no system of survey of the affected people, or of the differential impacts on women, men and children; notice of demolition, when given, is ridiculously short, even a few hours, with rumours often substituting for notice; there is no hearing of the slum-dwellers; no mechanism to deal with complaints.
There is no computing of losses, not even of life. The Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, passed in May 2006, which suspends demolitions for a period of one year, continues this tradition of callousness.
While 'mixed-land use not conforming to the Master Plan', and 'construction beyond sanctioned plans' are protected without exception, the Act says that there will be no such moratorium in relation to the 'removal of slums and jhuggi-jhopri dwellers and hawkers and street vendors' where 'clearance of land is required for specific public purpose'.
The state should explain why, for its non-performance, the urban poor are demonised and their houses ruthlessly destroyed.
The writer is a legal researcher.
(Courtesy: Women's Feature Service)
Characterising the slum-dweller as 'encroacher', and as being in 'illegal occupation (of government land)' has lent an assumed legitimacy to demolitions that have been unleashed on the urban poor.
By describing the act of providing an alternative site to an evicted slum-dweller as akin to "giving a reward to a pickpocket" which is what the Supreme Court did in Almitra Patil's case in 2000 the slum-dweller has, in fact, been dubbed a criminal.
In November 2002, the perception of the slum-dweller as a usurper of public land led the Delhi high court to strike down the policy of resettlement.
In March 2003, the Supreme Court, in an interim order, permitted allotments under the resettlement policy to be made "subject to the result of the petitions".
But the Delhi high court has continued to adopt the Almitra reasoning and has ordered demolitions on pain of punishment for contempt of court while rejecting the policy of relocation. The Supreme Court has, thereafter, allowed this position to persist.
As the courts have seen it, slum-dwellings suffer from the vice of illegality. This is because slums have developed on public land, which were acquired under the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Act, 1957, to facilitate the planned development of the city.
None of these lands was intended to house slums. The question then is: Where in the city is it legal for the poor to reside?
The report of the Committee on Problems of Slums in Delhi, constituted by the Planning Commission, records in June 2002 that the DDA is stated to own 25,377.2 hectares (62,707 acres) of land 17 per cent of the land in the state.
A report that the committee relies on has found that "DDA claims that 20 per cent of the residential area is earmarked for economically weaker sections/squatter populations under the integrated development project.
DDA has not allotted any land to slum and jhuggi-jhopri department during 1992-97. In 1997-98, DDA allocated 32 acres of land in Tehkhand village. during 1998-99, about 27.4 acres of land was allocated..." This is in a city where over 30 per cent of the population lives in slum colonies.
The cause of 'illegal' occupation of public lands, then, is non-performance of the state. Urban poor have created their own housing stock, with no assistance from the state. It is this housing stock that is being demolished.
When a statute such as the DDA Act, 1957, provides an authority with the power to acquire land with a view to facilitating the planned development of a city, it does not make the state or its agency a landowner.
Instead, it invests a responsibility in them to act according to their statutory duty in dealing with the land. When it does not perform as it is mandated to, it would be absurd to punish those whom it has not served. It would appear that no laws apply where demolition has been ordered.
There is no system of survey of the affected people, or of the differential impacts on women, men and children; notice of demolition, when given, is ridiculously short, even a few hours, with rumours often substituting for notice; there is no hearing of the slum-dwellers; no mechanism to deal with complaints.
There is no computing of losses, not even of life. The Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, passed in May 2006, which suspends demolitions for a period of one year, continues this tradition of callousness.
While 'mixed-land use not conforming to the Master Plan', and 'construction beyond sanctioned plans' are protected without exception, the Act says that there will be no such moratorium in relation to the 'removal of slums and jhuggi-jhopri dwellers and hawkers and street vendors' where 'clearance of land is required for specific public purpose'.
The state should explain why, for its non-performance, the urban poor are demonised and their houses ruthlessly destroyed.
The writer is a legal researcher.
(Courtesy: Women's Feature Service)