The apex court has said it would formulate directives on when and how properties can be demolished under the municipal laws of the land.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 17 ordered a halt to demolitions without its permission until October 1, but exempted public roads, water bodies and railway lines from the order’s ambit.
ALSO READ: Atishi To Become Delhi’s New Chief Minister; MLAs Support Arvind Kejriwal’s Choice
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed this direction in a petition challenging the alleged actions of various state governments bulldozing the buildings of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. The court posted the matters for the next hearing on October 1, according to reports.
"Till next date there shall be no demolitions without seeking leave of this court. However such order would not be applicable for unauthorised constructions on public streets, footpaths, abutting railway lines or public spaces," the court ordered.
The apex court said it would formulate directives on when and how properties can be demolished under the municipal laws of the land.
Last week, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti had criticised “ bulldozer justice”, and observed that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a country where the law is supreme.
It may be recalled, on the last date, the court had expressed an intention to lay down pan-India guidelines to address the concerns that authorities in several states are resorting to the demolition of houses of persons accused of crimes as a punitive action. To this end, parties were asked to submit draft suggestions which could be considered by the Court. Following the order, Jamiat Ulama I Hind submitted its suggestions.
A municipal authority in Gujarat had threatened to demolish the house of a family one of whose members had been named in an FIR.
The petitioner, a co-owner of a land in the Kathlal in Kheda district had approached the top court against the decision of the municipal authorities. The petitioner's lawyer submitted that three generations of his family are residing in the said houses for about two decades.
“In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally-constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for the demolition of a property," the bench observed.
