The 'जहां झुग्गी, वहीं मकान' (Houses where the slums are) scheme is essentially an extension and a specific implementation strategy *within* the broader framework of the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The 2015 policy provides for both in-situ (on-site or nearby) and relocation rehabilitation. 'जहां झुग्गी, वहीं मकान' specifically focuses on the 'in-situ' aspect, aiming to provide permanent housing to eligible slum dwellers as close as possible to their original location, minimizing disruption to their livelihoods and social fabric. It's not a separate policy but a programmatic approach to achieve the policy's in-situ goals.

The 'पहले पुनर्वास, फिर बेदखली' principle, while strong in theory, faces significant practical hurdles. The primary reason for delays and disputes often stems from the non-availability of suitable land for rehabilitation and financial disagreements between DUSIB and various land-owning agencies (like DDA, Railways, MCD). These agencies are responsible for providing land or financial assistance for rehabilitation, but often resist due to their own development plans or funding constraints. This leads to:

• •Delayed projects: Rehabilitation projects get stalled, leaving residents in uncertainty.
• •Continued vulnerability: Residents remain vulnerable to ad-hoc evictions if land-owning agencies proceed without DUSIB's full coordination or court intervention.
• •Legal battles: Residents often have to approach courts to assert their right to rehabilitation, as seen in recent developments (2023-2024 court petitions).
• •Increased costs: Delays can escalate project costs, further straining resources.

The policy specifically covers those who have resided in their jhuggis for at least one year as of January 1, 2015. This means: * Newer residents: Individuals or families who moved into a slum cluster after January 1, 2015, are generally not eligible for rehabilitation under this policy. * Non-residents: Those who do not have proof of residence in the identified slum cluster, or whose biometric identification fails, are also excluded. * Commercial establishments: The policy primarily focuses on residential rehabilitation, not commercial structures within slum clusters. For those excluded, the policy offers no direct rehabilitation. They face the risk of eviction without any alternative housing provision, potentially leading to increased homelessness or forced migration to other informal settlements. This creates a significant gap, as urban migration is continuous, and new informal settlements often emerge, leaving a segment of the urban poor outside the policy's safety net.

Addressing Criticisms: * Cut-off Date: While a cut-off date (1 Jan 2015) is necessary to prevent fresh encroachments and manage resources, it undeniably excludes newer migrants who are also part of the urban poor. The intent is to protect long-term residents, but it creates a 'legacy' benefit. * Contribution Amount: The ₹1.42 lakh contribution, though significantly subsidized, can be a substantial burden for the poorest families, potentially leading to them selling their rehabilitated units or being unable to access them. It aims to instill ownership and partially cover costs, but its affordability for the most vulnerable is questionable. Potential Reforms: * Dynamic Cut-off: Instead of a static date, consider a rolling cut-off mechanism, perhaps linked to the declaration of a cluster for rehabilitation, or a more flexible approach for new migrants, possibly through rental housing schemes. * Tiered Contribution/Subsidies: Introduce a tiered contribution system based on income levels, with higher subsidies or even full waiver for the poorest households. Microfinance options could also be explored. * Livelihood Integration: Integrate rehabilitation with livelihood support programs. Simply providing a house without ensuring economic stability can lead to distress sales or re-emergence of slums. * Inter-Agency Coordination: Strengthen the legal and administrative framework to ensure seamless coordination and timely land/fund allocation from land-owning agencies, possibly with a dispute resolution mechanism. * Rental Housing: Explore public rental housing options for those who cannot afford ownership or don't meet eligibility criteria, ensuring no one is left without a roof.

The 'जहां झुग्गी, वहीं मकान' (Houses where the slums are) scheme is essentially an extension and a specific implementation strategy *within* the broader framework of the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The 2015 policy provides for both in-situ (on-site or nearby) and relocation rehabilitation. 'जहां झुग्गी, वहीं मकान' specifically focuses on the 'in-situ' aspect, aiming to provide permanent housing to eligible slum dwellers as close as possible to their original location, minimizing disruption to their livelihoods and social fabric. It's not a separate policy but a programmatic approach to achieve the policy's in-situ goals.

The 'पहले पुनर्वास, फिर बेदखली' principle, while strong in theory, faces significant practical hurdles. The primary reason for delays and disputes often stems from the non-availability of suitable land for rehabilitation and financial disagreements between DUSIB and various land-owning agencies (like DDA, Railways, MCD). These agencies are responsible for providing land or financial assistance for rehabilitation, but often resist due to their own development plans or funding constraints. This leads to:

• •Delayed projects: Rehabilitation projects get stalled, leaving residents in uncertainty.
• •Continued vulnerability: Residents remain vulnerable to ad-hoc evictions if land-owning agencies proceed without DUSIB's full coordination or court intervention.
• •Legal battles: Residents often have to approach courts to assert their right to rehabilitation, as seen in recent developments (2023-2024 court petitions).
• •Increased costs: Delays can escalate project costs, further straining resources.

The policy specifically covers those who have resided in their jhuggis for at least one year as of January 1, 2015. This means: * Newer residents: Individuals or families who moved into a slum cluster after January 1, 2015, are generally not eligible for rehabilitation under this policy. * Non-residents: Those who do not have proof of residence in the identified slum cluster, or whose biometric identification fails, are also excluded. * Commercial establishments: The policy primarily focuses on residential rehabilitation, not commercial structures within slum clusters. For those excluded, the policy offers no direct rehabilitation. They face the risk of eviction without any alternative housing provision, potentially leading to increased homelessness or forced migration to other informal settlements. This creates a significant gap, as urban migration is continuous, and new informal settlements often emerge, leaving a segment of the urban poor outside the policy's safety net.

Addressing Criticisms: * Cut-off Date: While a cut-off date (1 Jan 2015) is necessary to prevent fresh encroachments and manage resources, it undeniably excludes newer migrants who are also part of the urban poor. The intent is to protect long-term residents, but it creates a 'legacy' benefit. * Contribution Amount: The ₹1.42 lakh contribution, though significantly subsidized, can be a substantial burden for the poorest families, potentially leading to them selling their rehabilitated units or being unable to access them. It aims to instill ownership and partially cover costs, but its affordability for the most vulnerable is questionable. Potential Reforms: * Dynamic Cut-off: Instead of a static date, consider a rolling cut-off mechanism, perhaps linked to the declaration of a cluster for rehabilitation, or a more flexible approach for new migrants, possibly through rental housing schemes. * Tiered Contribution/Subsidies: Introduce a tiered contribution system based on income levels, with higher subsidies or even full waiver for the poorest households. Microfinance options could also be explored. * Livelihood Integration: Integrate rehabilitation with livelihood support programs. Simply providing a house without ensuring economic stability can lead to distress sales or re-emergence of slums. * Inter-Agency Coordination: Strengthen the legal and administrative framework to ensure seamless coordination and timely land/fund allocation from land-owning agencies, possibly with a dispute resolution mechanism. * Rental Housing: Explore public rental housing options for those who cannot afford ownership or don't meet eligibility criteria, ensuring no one is left without a roof.