Rehabilitation Under Statutory Scheme Not Punitive: Uttarakhand HC Upholds Eviction Notices To Rispana Riverbed Basti Residents

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that action taken by authorities to relocate residents of a Basti situated along the Rispana riverbed in Dehradun, in furtherance of the Uttarakhand Special Provisions for Urban Local Bodies and Authorities Act, 2018, cannot be termed illegal or punitive. The Court observed that where residents are being shifted to alternative accommodation under the statutory scheme, such action is consistent with the object of the Act. On this basis, the Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging eviction notices issued to the residents.

Justice Pankaj Purohit was dealing with multiple writ petitions raising a common challenge to an eviction notice dated 21.11.2025 and subsequent action directing residents to vacate their dwellings and shift to flats allotted under rehabilitation schemes.

The petitioners, residents of Kathbangla Basti along the Rispana River, challenged the eviction notice and a subsequent unsigned and unstamped notice affixed on their dwellings on 15.02.2026 directing them to vacate within a short period, failing which demolition was threatened.

They asserted that they had been residing in the area prior to the statutory cut-off date under the Uttarakhand Special Provisions for Urban Local Bodies and Authorities Act, 2018, and were therefore entitled to protection from eviction or punitive action. It was also stated that the residents, largely engaged in daily wage and informal occupations, were dependent on their dwellings as their sole place of residence and livelihood.

The petitioners further contended that the impugned action was arbitrary and in violation of the statutory framework under the Uttarakhand Reforms, Regularisation, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Prevention of Encroachment of the Slums located in Urban Local Bodies of the State Act, 2016 and the 2018 Act.

It was contended that no comprehensive rehabilitation policy had been disclosed, no socio-economic survey had been conducted, and no consultation had taken place with the residents regarding relocation. The process, it was submitted, was being carried out in “undue haste”, with only a few families being selected for relocation.

The petitioners further contended that despite submitting objections to the eviction notice, no order or communication had been issued addressing their concerns.

Conversely, the State contended that the action was being undertaken in compliance with directions of the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal in Niranjan Baghchi v State of Uttarakhand and Ors. It was submitted that the residents were not being subjected to punitive action, but were being allotted flats constructed under rehabilitation schemes.

It was further submitted that the action was aimed at relocating residents from a riverbed area where they were exposed to risk in the event of flash floods or natural calamities.

The Court examined the object and scheme of the Uttarakhand Special Provisions for Urban Local Bodies and Authorities Act, 2018, and observed that the legislation was enacted to address the issue of slums in urban areas through rehabilitation and planned development.

In this context, the Court noted that the petitioners were residing in a dry riverbed and that the authorities were seeking to achieve the object of the statute by rehabilitating them in alternative accommodation.

“After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and after perusal of material available on record, particularly going through the objects and reasons of Uttarakhand Special Provisions for Urban Bodies and Authorities Act, 2018, and Section 2(d) of the said Act this Court is of the considered opinion that the above said Act was enacted for the purpose of rehabilitation of slums situated in all urban bodies of Uttarakhand and the respondent-Authorities by the impugned notice is trying to achieve its object by rehabilitating the petitioners who are living in dry river bed and are in danger if any flash flood or natural calamity occurs. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a punitive action is being taken against the petitioners also does not hold any water as the petitioners have been allotted suitable flats by the Government for their rehabilitation,” the Court held.

Holding that the writ petitions were devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed the petitions along with all connected matters.

Case Name: Rajeshwari Yadav Gupta v State of Uttarakhand and others

Case No.: Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 739 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order