AAP's Amanatullah Khan Takes Batla House Demarcation Battle to Supreme Court

AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan plans to challenge the DDA's property demarcation in Batla House at the Supreme Court. This follows a Division Bench's advice for affected residents to file individual petitions. Khan withdrew his PIL to inform locals about filing separate petitions against alleged unauthorized demolitions.


Devdiscourse News Desk | Updated: 12-06-2025 10:11 IST | Created: 12-06-2025 10:11 IST
AAP's Amanatullah Khan Takes Batla House Demarcation Battle to Supreme Court
AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan (Photo/ANI). Image Credit: ANI
  • Country:
  • India

Amanatullah Khan, an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA, announced on Thursday that he intends to escalate the dispute over property demarcations in Delhi's Batla House area to the Supreme Court. This decision was made following instructions from the High Court's Division Bench, which allowed affected residents a three-day window to submit their individual writ petitions.

Khan's move comes shortly after he withdrew a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Delhi High Court aiming to halt demolition efforts by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Speaking to ANI, Khan remarked, "The Division Bench has provided time for the concerned parties to file their writs individually within three days. We've also retracted our PIL. Residents have occupied these premises since 1971, and suddenly they are deemed unauthorized, excluding them from the PM-UDAY scheme."

He further elaborated, "The proposed demolition approach by the DDA is perplexing and their demarcation lacks accuracy. I withdrew my plea intending to challenge this demarcation at the Supreme Court." The High Court had endorsed Khan's withdrawal, with Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia suggesting that the residents present their grievances individually. Khan initially challenged a DDA notice for demolishing alleged unauthorized properties, but the High Court denied an immediate interim stay on the demolitions proposed for June 11. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing the petitioner, argued that notices extended beyond authorized boundaries, while the DDA insisted these notices complied with the Supreme Court's directives.

(With inputs from agencies.)

Give Feedback