Delhi
,
Bengali Colony, Tughlaqabad
,
South East Delhi
Published :
May 2023
|
Updated :
Archaeological Survey of India issues eviction notice to families living near Tughlaqabad Fort
Reported by
Asmi Sharma
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
250
Households affected
People affected
2023
Year started
667
Land area affected
250
Households affected
People Affected
2023
Year started
667
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Urban Development (Other than Smart Cities)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Urban Development (Other than Smart Cities)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

On 11 January 2023, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) issued eviction notices to families living in and around Tughlaqabad Fort in New Delhi. ASI, the nodal agency responsible for maintaining sites of historic importance, deemed the settlements in the area 'illegal encroachments' and in violation of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958 (AMASR Act).

The notice informed residents that demolition would begin within 15 days and directed them to vacate the premises by 26 January. It did not provide any information on rehabilitation or provisioning of temporary shelter for the residents.

The Tughlaqabad Fort is a centrally protected monument under the AMASR Act. The fort's walls, gateways, bastions, and internal and external buildings all fall within the definition of a 'protected' site.

Tughlaqabad Fort and the surrounding area is also home to a number of settlements. The eviction notices were served to residents of Bengali Colony, one of the largest settlements of the area, where most residents are daily-wage labourers or domestic workers. The residents claim they have lived there for decades.

A large section of the community living in the colony has migrated from West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Many residents have even registered their houses under the Pradhan Mantri-Uday Scheme in December 2020, a scheme launched by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in 2019 to confer ownership rights to properties in 1,731 unauthorised colonies.

After receiving the notice, community members organised protests and roadblocks. But they have failed to get legal protection from the demolition, a member of AICCTU who has been protesting along with the residents told LCW.

The scale of the eviction prompted the Delhi Commission for the Protection of Children to take up the matter suo-moto. It wrote to ASI demanding the withdrawal of the order until adequate arrangements are made for the rehabilitation of the families and thousands of children living in Bengali Colony, adding that the eviction drive will severely affect children's education. An RTI application filed by LCW found that to date no orders have been issued by any government authority to suspend the eviction.

Community members claim that the presence of police and CRPF personnel in the area has increased after their protests began. The entrances and exits to the colony have been barricaded to control movement and prevent people from gathering. There have also been reports of use of police force against protesting residents, as well as routine harassment.

Some affected families even possess certificates showing that the land was allotted to them under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.

The eviction notices come in the backdrop of a long-running litigation. A public interest litigation was filed by Mr. S.N. Bhardwaj, in the Delhi High Court in 2001 against the unauthorised constructions and encroachments in and around the fort. The High Court however disposed that petition.

Dissatisfied with the disposal, Bhardwaj approached the Supreme Court (SC) with a similar plea through a special leave petition.

In 2003, the SC issued an order that no further construction should take place within the Fort area. The SC also directed the Delhi government, Delhi Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Police to assist the ASI in preventing any unauthorised construction from taking place in the area.

In September 2011, the SC directed ASI to take action against unauthorised constructions in the Fort, and submit a report within eight weeks. The next month, the court directed the ASI to submit an affidavit stating the number of houses that were present in the area based on an aerial survey conducted in 1993.

The ASI filed this affidavit in 2012 but also stated it was unable to complete the survey due to lack of capacity.

In 2016, the SC transferred the case to the High Court, stating that the matter now needed monitoring for compliance with its orders for removal of unauthorised constructions from the Fort.

In 2017, the Delhi High Court formed a committee to find a solution to this matter.

In November 2022, the High Court gave ASI six weeks' notice to file a status report on the matter. The court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to assist in the removal and ordered the BSES electricity board, to disconnect the electrical connections before demolition.

Residents filed an initial petition in the High Court on 25 January to stay the demolition. The judge dismissed the plea and upheld the mandate of the 2016 Supreme Court ruling.

In February 2023, the Mazdoor Awaaz Samiti, representing the residents of Tughlaqabad filed a subsequent petition demanding rehabilitation before demolition.

The High Court directed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, and Delhi Development Authority, to submit a rehabilitation plan to the court so that the phased resettlement of all residents could begin. It also directed the Chief Secretary to convene a meeting with senior officials from all these agencies, ASI, Delhi police, and the relevant district magistrate on February 20th, and submit a plan within four weeks.

However, the court did not grant a stay on the demolition till the said plan is submitted to the court.

On 24 April 2023, the High Court once again directed ASI to remove encroachments from the Fort area. On 30 April and 1 May 2023, a massive demolition drive was conducted by ASI over two days, rendering nearly 1000 families homeless. A resident of Tughlaqabad informed LCW that residents were not given any prior warning to the demolition which continued till nearly 9 p.m. and through the rain. He further added that no temporary accommodation or rehabilitation measures have been provided to the residents that have been impacted as a result of this eviction.

The case filed by Mazdoor Awaas Samiti is still being heard in the High Court and is listed for 16 May 2023. With no place to go, the residents currently live in make-shift shelters around the demolished sites, the resident told LCW.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Detention

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Released from detention

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

1. Male police beating female protestors. Few women police personnel were present.

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Residents of Tughlaqabad, Mazdoor Awaaz Samiti

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Detention

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Released from detention

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

1. Male police beating female protestors. Few women police personnel were present.

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Asmi Sharma

Asmi is a researcher based out of New Delhi. She holds a Bachelor's degree in History from Ramjas College and a Master's degree in Development Studies from Azim Premji University. She has been working with various people’s movements for the past five years including the National Campaign for Peoples' Right to Information and Jan Sarokar. Her areas of interest include transparency, accountability, participatory governance, access to social justice, rights and entitlements.

Show more work
Latest updates
East Jaintia Hills
Meghalaya

Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills

Narela
Delhi

Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex

Surguja
Chhattisgarh

Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest

Kamrup Metropolitan
Assam

Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court

Faizabad
Uttar Pradesh

Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya

Mumbai
Maharashtra

Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project

Pune
Maharashtra

Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra

Surat
Gujarat

Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for legal recognition of land rights

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

1. Male police beating female protestors. Few women police personnel were present.

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us