During the hearing today before the Supreme Court, Justice Khanna said that the affected residents were receiving alternative accommodation, similar to encroachers.
The Counsel for the petitioners, however, pointed out that the alternative accommodation was far away from Akbar Nagar.
In response, Justice Khanna pointed at that the location encroached was also initially distant from the city before becoming the city center.
The counsel thereafter underlined that the State was charging taxes from the residents. However, Justice Khanna emphasized that the taxes were for the services provided and did not imply ownership of the land by the petitioners.
Source: Barandbench
