[Reader-list] Nangla: Supreme Court stays demolitions

[Aniruddha Shankar]

On the 5th of April the High Court had ordered that the undemolished houses in 
Nanglamachi be "removed" without waiting for resettlement of the affected persons.

During the last month the teachers and staff of the Ankur Society for 
Alternatives in Education and Cybermohalla practitioners have been working 
tirelessly to prevent the destruction of the homes that remain in Nangla. They 
have been collecting and verifying documentation, conducting interviews and have 
produced a substantial narrative that testifies to the fact that NanglaMachi has 
been settled for 25 years, and that the inhabitants of Nanglamachi came to Delhi 
to look for work. Apart from government documentation such as decades old Ration 
Cards, Below Poverty Line Certificates and Voter ID cards, a clear picture also 
emerges that Nangla was literally created by these people on top of a toxic fly 
ash swamp on the banks of the Yamuna decades ago.

This narrative has been critical in the framing of a writ petition before the 
Supreme Court which, after laying out the background and context of the 
inhabitants of Nangla seeks to stop the impending demolitions.

The petition draws on established law flowing from the Constitution, the 
decisions of the Supreme Court, international laws and covenants, natural 
justice and, critically, the established scheme of the Delhi State Government on 
the relocation of settlements such as Nangla that was framed with the approval 
of the Central Government.

This scheme states that those who have established their homes before 31.01.1990 
are entitled to an 18 sq.m. plot of land while those who have established their 
homes between 01.02.1990 and 31.12.1998 are entitled to a plot of 12.5 sq.m.

The scheme states that the relocation would be partially financed by the 
relocatees who will pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- before being allotted a site.

The policy also states that the emphasis will not be on large scale relocations 
and that relocations will not take place without a specific use being envisaged 
for the site to be cleared. In my opinion, this is very important, as there is 
no clear statement from anyone setting out the purpose for which the land that 
Nangla stands on now will be used.

The scheme states that the major emphasis will be on in-situ upgradation of the 
settlement, through widening of roads and alignment of plots and that the 
settlements would come under the Environmental Improvement in Urban Areas Scheme 
which looks at the provision of basic amenities and sanitation.

This policy has been affirmed by the Supreme Court which has further stated that 
the land plots should be situated near adequate transport and other resources.

The petition argues that the demolition of Nangla has taken place in complete 
contravention of these established practices and laws. In my opinion, this is an 
example of the Court exercising the administrative and executive functions that 
are the duty and right of the state, part of a larger process whereby the 
judiciary is "forced" to "step in" to "stem the rot".

The petition claims that almost all residents of Nangla are fully covered by the 
extant scheme of the State government and that the order of removal ignores this 
fact.

In an order granting interim relief to the petitioners, the Supreme Court has 
stayed the demolitions until the 9th of May, 2006.

So a thin ray of hope for the Nanglamachi residents but to sound a note of 
caution, this is a very pivotal arena which we have now entered. An adverse 
decision by this court could affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people. 
Much hangs in the balance.

Will keep you all posted. If anyone wants a copy of the order, the petition or 
the synopsis, please mail me.

Aniruddha Shankar