On October 20, the Allahabad High Court’s special bench constituted to address the Uttar Pradesh Government’s proposed demolition actions in Bahraich on Sunday (October 20), granted affected persons 15-days’ time to respond against the hasty three-day demolition notices issued by the Public Works Department (PWD) on October 17 and pasted on the night of October 18, 2024. The affected families hail from Maharajganj, Bahraich and are largely from the Muslim community. They include the family members of Bahraich Violence main accused Abdul Hameed.
In response to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 909 of 2024 filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), a division bench of Justices AR Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi also noted that the notices issued to occupants for proposed demolition did not indicate the number of houses situated on kilometre 38 of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road, that have been authorised for construction.
Though the court did not explicitly stay the demolition in its order and observed that the court have no reason to believe that order passed by the Supreme Court on September 17, 2024 (halting nationwide demolition) shall not be carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the letter and spirit.
The bench observed that “Evidently, unauthorized structures in any public place such as roads, streets, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law are the exceptions to the general rule. In the present case, we find that on kilometer-38, of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road some notices have come to be issued to some persons for raising unauthorized constructions”
According to Live Law, the division bench, however, took strong exception an association’s filing of the PIL, saying that such petitions would have far-reaching consequences.
Background of the case
On October 13, 2024 (Sunday), a violent incident unfolded in Maharajganj, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, during a Durga Puja immersion procession. Tensions escalated when loud music was played near a mosque, leading to gunfire that tragically claimed the life of 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, a local resident participating in the procession. This incident ignited widespread violence and communal unrest in the area. In the aftermath, mobs retaliated by vandalising and setting fire to numerous properties, including homes, shops, hospitals, and vehicles. Disturbingly, a video emerged showing Ram Gopal in a heated moment, removing a green flag from a rooftop and replacing it with a saffron flag, moments before he was shot. Authorities quickly responded, arresting five suspects linked to Mishra’s death following an encounter with Uttar Pradesh Police, during which two of the suspects sustained gunshot wounds. The suspects, identified as Mohammad Faheen, Mohammad Sarfaraz, Abdul Hameed, Mohammad Taleem (alias Sabloo), and Mohammad Afzal, were reportedly attempting to flee to Nepal. By October 18, the situation escalated further, with 87 individuals arrested in connection to the riots, and around 1,000 people booked after at least 11 FIRs were registered.
Following this, the families of the accused, along with 23 others, received notices from the Public Works Department (PWD) allowing them just three days to respond before proposed demolition actions against their properties. The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) challenged these notices, arguing they were served illegally and in violation of the Supreme Court’s earlier directive on September 17.
Simultaneously, a petition was also moved before the Supreme Court against the demolition issued by the Uttar Pradesh authorities Bahraich violence.
Unclear whether responded filed any reply or not: HC
While granting the time extension over the impugned demolition notices, the bench also commented on the uncertainty on whether the aggrieved individuals have filed any replies or sought recourse through other forums. Then bench observed that “The notices are issued to the persons concerned for participation in the proceedings through a reply to be submitted by them within three days. It is unclear in the pleadings as to whether the persons aggrieved have filed any reply or have approached any forum or not. In any case, notices issued against a limited number of persons who are to participate in the proceedings cannot be viewed to be a matter of general public importance, which may be taken cognizance of in a public interest litigation unless the vulnerability of an aggrieved person is such that he is established to be the one who is unable to approach the court for availing the remedy available under law”
High court granted 15 days’ time to affected families to file reply
The order is a significant intervention that emphasises the importance of direct involvement from those facing the notices in the proceedings. The bench stressed that those who have been served notices for demolition of the illegal structures on Kundasar-Mahsi-Nanapara-Maharajganj Road in Bahraich, have been directed to file their replies within 15 days and also ordered the State Authorities to consider the said replies and pass ‘speaking and reasoned’ orders on these replies..
“We expect the persons faced with the notices to participate with the proceedings in the meantime. We further provide that in case they file their reply to the notice within a period of 15 days from today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order which shall be communicated to the parties aggrieved” the bench directed.
The matter is listed for October 23, 2024 for next hearing.
The order of Allahabad High Court dated October 20, 2024 may be read here:
Related:
Report: 294 houses demolished on a daily basis in 2023 in India