On Monday, the Supreme Court chose not to intervene in the demolition notices served to property owners in Batla House, located in Jamia Nagar. The court advised the petitioners to approach the relevant authorities for further action.

No Temporary Relief Granted

A vacation bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma denied any interim stay on the demolition orders and scheduled the case for a hearing in July.

Residents had appealed to the Supreme Court for a halt to the eviction and demolition processes.

The petition was initiated by Sultana Shaheen along with 39 other property owners in Batla House, who reported that a 15-day eviction notice was affixed to their properties on May 27.

Demolition Orders Linked to Supreme Court Directive

According to the petition, the demolitions were executed following a Supreme Court directive issued on May 7, which instructed the Delhi government and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to take action against illegal constructions in the Batla House region, as stated by advocate Adeel Ahmed.

The petitioners argued that the demolitions were unjust as they were not included in the original case and were not given a chance to defend their positions.

Demolition Notices Issued to Residents

The petition highlighted that the affected residents, who own properties at Khasra Nos. 271 and 279 in Batla House, received eviction notices on May 27, 2025, based on the Supreme Court's May 7 order, without being part of the writ petition or having the opportunity to be heard.

It was emphasized that conducting a demolition drive without providing affected residents a fair chance to present their case would violate the principles of natural justice and infringe upon fundamental rights protected under Articles 14, 19(1)(e), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Furthermore, the petition asserted that the group of residents facing demolition had valid title documents and proof of continuous possession prior to 2014, qualifying them under the Recognition of Property Rights Act, 2019, despite claims that their properties fell outside the PM-UDAY Scheme coverage.