SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC. versus DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS. ETC.

SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC. versus DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS. ETC.

The benefit of rehabilitation and relocation following demolition of jhuggies, under public interest litigation, must be extended to all eligible persons whose names were furnished to the court through annexures to the writ petitions, and it is not necessary for every affected individual to be a formal petitioner.

Parties
Appellant: Sudama Singh & Ors. Etc.; Respondent: Deepak Mohan Spolia & Ors. Etc.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeals allowed to the extent indicated above; High Court judgment restricting benefit to only named petitioners set aside.
Legal Topics
Right to Shelter, Public Interest Litigation, Demolition and Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers, Rehabilitation Schemes
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Shelter Public Interest Litigation Demolition and Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers Rehabilitation Schemes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sudama Singh & Ors. Etc.

Appellant

Deepak Mohan Spolia & Ors. Etc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether all affected persons, including those named in annexures but not formal petitioners, are entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation following demolition of jhuggies under public interest litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The benefit of rehabilitation and relocation following demolition of jhuggies, under public interest litigation, must be extended to all eligible persons whose names were furnished to the court through annexures to the writ petitions, and it is not necessary for every affected individual to be a formal petitioner.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed to the extent indicated above; High Court judgment restricting benefit to only named petitioners set aside.

Orders

  • Respondents directed to implement the Supreme Court judgment in light of this clarification within three months.
  • Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.