Demolition of homes at Bhoomiheen Camp in Southeast Delhi’s Govindpuri began just minutes before the Delhi High Court’s vacation bench took up a plea seeking to stay the action.

The two petitioners whose appeals were scheduled to be heard on Monday (June 2) lost their homes in the process.

A division bench of Justices Tushar Rao Gedela and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, however, declined to halt the Delhi Development Authority’s (DDA) demolition drive, while issuing notices to the concerned authorities.

The refusal comes shortly after a single-judge bench had dismissed similar pleas filed by slum dwellers challenging the eviction and demolition of the decades-old settlement.

On May 26 and May 30, Justice Dharmesh Sharma had rejected petitions from residents of Bhoomiheen Camp, a slum cluster that had housed migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and other states for nearly 30 years.

The settlement was home to domestic workers, factory labourers, and other low-income residents. The petitioners had first approached the court in 2023, arguing that the proposed demolition was arbitrary and in violation of the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. They contended that the rehabilitation surveys were flawed, having been conducted by an obscure outsourced agency, and claimed that proper procedures were not followed.

In his ruling, Justice Sharma concluded that the DDA had largely complied with the required procedures while surveying the JJ clusters.

He stated that the petitioners had no vested right to rehabilitation and criticised earlier interim stays on demolition for delaying the rehabilitation project and increasing public expenditure.

The court also noted that DDA had already spent over Rs 835 crore on the in-situ rehabilitation of JJ dwellers in Bhoomiheen Camp and warned that further delays would escalate costs and hinder the rehabilitation of other settlements.

The appeals on Monday were filed by two residents, Manjoor Ali and Kashmir Lal, challenging Justice Sharma’s orders. But before the court could hear their pleas, their homes were razed. During the hearing, their counsel highlighted that the demolition had proceeded despite the pending appeal.

The bench, however, refused to intervene, stating that the action was in compliance with the earlier court order.

The DDA confirmed during the hearing that the petitioners’ homes had been demolished. The court scheduled the next hearing for July 7, when the broader issue of rehabilitation is expected to be considered.