SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

Delhi High Court permits demolition drive in Shalimar Bagh for road widening, sets deadline for occupants to vacate

#Law & Policy#Infrastructure#India#Delhi
Delhi News Desk | Last Updated : 15th Apr, 2026
Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has allowed authorities to proceed with a demolition drive in Shalimar Bagh to facilitate road widening, prioritising public infrastructure over private occupation claims. The order, issued in the past week, grants residents time until the end of May to vacate the affected area. The case relates to encroachments on public land earmarked for expansion of Road No. 320, with the court observing that improved connectivity and access for emergency services outweigh individual claims. The ruling follows a petition by occupants seeking protection from eviction. Authorities have been directed to carry out the process in a structured manner, with consideration for relocation timelines, while ensuring that the project proceeds without further obstruction.

The Delhi High Court, in the past week, permitted authorities to proceed with a demolition drive in Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, to enable the widening of a public road, while directing occupants to vacate the affected premises within a specified timeframe.


The order was issued in response to a petition filed by residents of Haiderpur village in Shalimar Bagh, who had sought protection from eviction and demolition of structures located along Road No. 320. The court allowed the authorities to continue with the planned road expansion project, granting occupants time until the end of May to vacate the site.

The bench observed that the land in question had already been acquired by the government and that the occupants did not possess legal ownership. It noted that the structures constituted encroachments on public land and that the planned road widening was necessary to address traffic congestion and improve access for emergency services such as ambulances and fire brigades.

During the proceedings, the petitioners argued that they had been residing in the area for several years and possessed documents such as utility bills and identification records. However, the court held that such documents did not establish legal ownership, particularly in the absence of registered sale deeds. It further clarified that general power of attorney (GPA)-based claims could not be treated as proof of title.

The court also considered technical aspects of the proposed road widening, noting that expansion on one side of the road was not feasible due to the presence of railway infrastructure. As a result, the widening had to be carried out on the side where encroachments existed, making demolition unavoidable for execution of the project.

While allowing the demolition drive, the court directed authorities to adopt a phased approach, ensuring that residents are given adequate time to relocate their belongings and make alternative arrangements. It also suggested that the administration may consider providing ex gratia assistance to affected individuals on humanitarian grounds, although this was not mandated as a legal entitlement.

The ruling underscores the court's position that public interest, particularly in relation to infrastructure development and urban mobility, must take precedence over unauthorised occupation of government land. The decision is expected to facilitate the execution of the road widening project, which has been pending due to litigation and local resistance.

The development forms part of broader efforts to improve urban infrastructure in Delhi, where road expansion and traffic management projects often face delays due to encroachments and legal disputes. By allowing the demolition drive to proceed with defined timelines, the court has enabled authorities to move forward with the project while balancing procedural considerations for affected occupants.

Have something to say? Post your comment