Edited by: Altamash Khan
In recent weeks, the residents of Batla House and surrounding areas in Okhla, Delhi, have been shaken by demolition notices served to them under the pretext of “unauthorised colonies.” Compounding their distress is the intervention of the DDA and Uttar Pradesh (UP) government, which, after decades of silence, has now suddenly claimed ownership of portions of the land these colonies sit on. This two-pronged threat—of demolition by municipal authorities and land claims by the respective authorities—has left thousands of families, many of whom have lived in the locality for generations, anxious and uncertain about their future.
This issue is not simply about land ownership or urban planning; it is a deeply political and human crisis. It touches upon the right to shelter, the failure of state machinery to regulate urban growth responsibly, and the selective enforcement of laws that disproportionately affect the marginalized. At the heart of this crisis lies a fundamental question: Can a government evict its citizens from homes they have built and sustained for decades, simply because the state failed to regularize or address the legal status of these settlements in time?
Batla House and the wider Jamia Nagar area have grown over the last 40-50 years as a result of a complex set of social, economic, and political circumstances. Like many informal settlements across Indian cities, these colonies developed to accommodate a growing population left out of planned urban housing schemes. People from across the country, including marginalized minorities, moved here in search of affordable housing and community. Over time, these areas evolved from shantytowns into thriving urban neighbourhoods with roads, schools, mosques, and markets—built not by government funds but by the residents themselves. The argument that these colonies are “unauthorized” rings hollow when one considers the state’s complicity. The land on which these colonies stand was bought, sold, and registered through legal mechanisms. Governments collected property taxes, provided electricity and water connections, and during elections, these neighbourhoods were very much part of the democratic process. So, what does it mean to call them unauthorized now?
Moreover, the sudden claim by the DDA over land in Delhi’s Okhla area adds another layer of absurdity and political intrigue. For over 40 years, the state remained indifferent to this land. It was not maintained, no revenue was collected, and no administrative role was played. Now, at a time when Delhi’s unauthorized colonies are under the microscope, the intervention seems more opportunistic than administrative. What could not be resolved in decades is now being weaponized, potentially to displace thousands. This raises a worrying precedent. If any state can suddenly claim ownership of land in another city based on outdated records, without regard to the people living there or the changes that have occurred over decades, it could set off a wave of similar actions across the country. Urban India is full of “unauthorized” developments—often the only affordable housing available. Should we begin demolishing them all based on long-forgotten documents?
Let us also consider the human cost. These aren’t just buildings or vacant plots of land—they are homes. They hold memories, relationships, livelihoods, and the invisible threads that bind communities together. A demolition drive might clear “encroachments” on paper, but it leaves behind broken families and shattered lives. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of rehabilitation before demolition. The right to housing is intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. If the government has allowed these colonies to exist for 40 years, the residents have a legitimate expectation of regularization or, at the very least, a fair rehabilitation process. What they are being offered now—sudden notices, bulldozers at the ready, and no alternative arrangements—is nothing short of state violence.
Governments must recognize the human ecosystem that has developed over decades. Urban planning cannot be retroactively applied like a hammer. Instead, there should be a compassionate, well-thought-out policy that includes legal regularization, proper surveys, community consultation, and alternatives for those who may have to relocate. Regularization of unauthorized colonies has been part of Delhi’s political discourse for years, with multiple governments promising action. Now is the time to deliver on those promises, not abandon them.
Finally, one must ask: Who benefits from this disruption? In a rapidly urbanising city like Delhi, land is immensely valuable. The spectre of demolition often clears the way for commercial redevelopment and political gain. But development that displaces the poor is not progress—it is exploitation. The demolition notices served to residents of Batla House and similar colonies, along with the belated land claim by the respective authorities, represent a failure of urban governance and a betrayal of the social contract. These people are not illegal occupants; they are citizens who have been failed by the very systems meant to protect them. It is time the state stopped punishing them for its negligence and began treating them with the dignity and fairness they deserve.
About the Writer:
Altamash Khan is a contributing journalist who completed his journalism studies at the prestigious Aligarh Muslim University. He has over half a decade of experience writing on a wide range of topics, from politics and social issues to technology and Brands. In addition to his journalism work, he works as a Public Relations and Brand Strategist, helping communicate Brand messages to the World. He would love to hear your thoughts on this issue. Leave a comment below or reach out via the social media handles.