Delhi HC orders status quo, grants interim protection as DDA’s Rajokari demolition drive comes under judicial scrutiny

The Court is presently hearing a batch of petitions filed by several farmhouse owners challenging the DDA’s anti-encroachment exercise around a stormwater drain (nala) in Rajokari.

The petitioners contend that substantial portions of their properties, including boundary walls, guard rooms, servant quarters and other structures, were demolished without issuance of individual show-cause notices and without providing them an opportunity of hearing.

In a significant development during proceedings held on June 3, 2026, Justice Amit Sharma directed that the status quo be maintained with respect to the subject properties after taking note of the material placed before the Court.

Importantly, the Court observed that the notice relied upon by the DDA did not indicate the issuance of any separate show-cause notice proposing demolition action.

The petitioners have consistently argued that public authorities cannot resort to demolition first and justify their actions later. According to them, all of the affected properties stand on regularised land, contain sanctioned structures and have remained in the possession of their owners for decades.

They contend that despite this, demolition squads entered the area and carried out extensive demolition without following the safeguards repeatedly emphasised by the Supreme Court.

The June 3 proceedings are part of a broader challenge mounted against the DDA’s Rajokari demolition drive. Earlier, on May 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court had issued notices in several petitions filed by similarly situated farmhouse owners questioning the legality of the exercise and alleging complete non-compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards.

Across the batch of petitions, the farmhouse owners have alleged that no individual demolition notices were served upon them before action was initiated. They have further sought restoration of demolished portions, compensation for losses allegedly suffered, disclosure of demarcation records relied upon by the authorities and protection against further coercive measures by the DDA.

Appearing for various petitioners are Senior Advocates Sudhir Nandrajog, Sandeep Sethi and Akshay Makhija, along with Advocates Sumit Gehlot, Ankit Banati, Manoj Nirvikar and others.

Advocate Sumit Gehlot has been appearing in several of the connected matters and has challenged the legality of the demolition exercise on behalf of affected property owners.

The petitioners’ legal teams, including Advocate Sumit Gehlot, have argued that the DDA’s actions are contrary to the due-process framework laid down by the Supreme Court and that demolition of private property without prior notice and hearing cannot be sustained in law.

The DDA, represented by Advocates R.K. Dhawan and Shobhana Takiar, has defended the exercise by contending that notices relating to the storm water drain and demarcation proceedings had been issued and that the action was intended to remove encroachments from public land.

However, the petitioners dispute having received any notice proposing demolition and have questioned both the demarcation process and the manner in which the exercise was conducted.

In one of the connected matters, the Court also recorded the DDA’s reliance upon an earlier notice and demarcation exercise, which the petitioner denied ever receiving. The dispute has further highlighted the factual controversies surrounding the demolition drive and the legality of the action undertaken by the authority.

So far, the different benches of Justice Jasmeet Singh, Justice Saurabh Banerjee and Justice Amit Sharma have heard the matters and have issued notices in at least six petitions arising from the Rajokari demolition exercise.

The Court is now expected to examine whether the DDA’s demolition drive complied with the procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court, whether affected persons were afforded adequate notice and hearing, and whether the anti-encroachment action remained within the bounds of law. For now, the demolition exercise has come under close judicial scrutiny, with the High Court extending protection to property owners while calling upon the DDA to justify its actions.