NEW DELHI: The Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday referred to as out the unlawful demolition of properties carried out underneath the pretext of street widening by the Uttar Pradesh authorities. The court docket referred to as the state’s actions “high-handed” and “with out authority of regulation,” directing the federal government to pay Rs 25 lakh as punitive compensation to every affected household.
The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, highlighted that the state can’t bulldoze by way of residents’ rights with out adhering to due course of.
“You possibly can’t include bulldozers and demolish homes in a single day. You do not give time to household to vacate. What in regards to the family articles? There must be due course of adopted,” stated Justice Pardiwala through the listening to.
Along with compensation, the court docket instructed Uttar Pradesh’s chief secretary to provoke a disciplinary inquiry in opposition to the officers liable for the illegal demolitions.
This directive got here through the listening to of a suo motu case from 2020, triggered by a letter from Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, whose house was demolished in 2019. Aakash claimed that his property was razed with out prior discover, ostensibly as a consequence of alleged encroachment on a freeway.
When state authorities argued that the petitioner had encroached on public land, Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned the proportionality of their response.
“You say that he was an encroacher of three.7 sq meters. We take it, we aren’t giving him a certificates for it, however how will you begin demolishing folks’s homes like that? That is lawlessness… strolling into any individual’s home…” the Chief Justice stated.
The bench discovered that authorities bypassed the usual authorized protocols, citing affidavits that confirmed no formal discover was issued. As an alternative, residents had been reportedly knowledgeable of the demolition by way of loudspeakers on-site, a transfer the court docket discovered insufficient and arbitrary.
“You possibly can’t simply beat a drum to inform folks to vacate their properties after which proceed with demolition. There must be a correct discover,” the bench added.
A report by the Nationwide Human Rights Fee (NHRC) submitted to the court docket revealed that the extent of demolition far exceeded the alleged encroachment, additional highlighting the shortage of oversight and procedural equity within the state’s actions.
Issuing pointers for all states and Union Territories, the Supreme Courtroom outlined the steps that should precede any removing of encroachments for street widening tasks.
Authorities are actually required to find out the present street width, formally notify residents of any encroachment, and permit them a chance to lift objections. Any antagonistic selections have to be supported by reasoned orders, offering affected residents with enough time to vacate.
