Bulldozers arrived early, and one by one, the structures came down. Shahid’s house — built in the 1920s and considered a symbol of pride for local sports lovers — was also reduced to rubble.

Why the demolition took place

The demolition was part of a planned 3.3 km four-lane road widening project in Varanasi, in the Prime Minister’s parliamentary constituency. The area affected includes a 300-metre stretch near Court Road intersection, where 70 houses are marked for removal. So far, 35 structures have been taken down.

Officials from the district administration stated that the affected families were given compensation in advance and were also issued a one-week ultimatum to vacate.

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh: Bulldozers were deployed at Court Chowk for road widening from Court to Sandaha. About 13 houses, including that of hockey player Padma Shri Mohammad Shahid, were demolished pic.twitter.com/MH6EDqEFvB

— IANS (@ians_india) September 28, 2025

“We have provided the compensation to the families and also gave an ultimatum a week before. We had told them that they should get their parts of the homes removed from the area designated for the road project, or the administration will do it. When the families did not take action, we had to,” a senior official told reporters, as The Free Press Journal reported

Shahid’s home: A landmark with history

Mohammad Shahid was one of India’s greatest hockey players. Known for his unmatched dribbling, he was a key member of the Indian team that won gold at the 1980 Moscow Olympics. He later captained the team in 1985–86 and was honoured with the Arjuna Award in 1981 and Padma Shri in 1986.

His home in Varanasi, where he was born and grew up, was more than just a house. It was a symbol for young athletes, especially aspiring hockey players. The house had become part of local memory — a place where people would often stop and speak of his achievements.

Family response: ‘we will miss this place’

According to the City ADM, Shahid’s family has nine legal heirs, out of which seven accepted the compensation. However, two family members were still staying in the house, unable to leave due to lack of alternative accommodation.

“Our memories are there in this home. This is our home. We will miss this place,” said Nazneen, a relative of Shahid. “The administration has given us the compensation; seven shareholders took it, but we have no place else to go, so two shareholders still stay at this home.”

In Kashi, authorities used a bulldozer to demolish the house of Padma Shri hockey player Mohammad Shahid. Despite pleas from people for a one-day delay, the police administration went ahead with the demolition. pic.twitter.com/pezTDf64HT

— The Observer Post (@TheObserverPost) September 28, 2025

The demolition took place despite their presence and their request for just one more day.

Bulldozer politics: A rising pattern

This incident adds to a growing trend across many Indian cities where bulldozers are being used aggressively as a tool for enforcement — from illegal encroachments to urban development. While authorities call it necessary, critics say it often comes without enough sensitivity or dialogue.

In Shahid’s case, despite legal procedure being followed, the emotional weight of the demolition was heavy, given the stature of the person once living there.

Request for memorial

Though the family has come to terms with the demolition, they have now made a humble appeal to the administration — to build a memorial or square in Shahid’s name at the same spot.

“Let something remain here that tells future generations that this is where a hockey legend lived,” said Nazneen.

PWD Executive Engineer KK Singh responded positively to the request that “It’s a great suggestion. Shahid was a national icon. We’ll speak to the District Magistrate about creating a memorial in his name.”

The road will soon be wider, traffic may ease, but Varanasi has lost more than a few walls. It has lost a place tied to its sporting history.

On September 28, a bulldozer didn’t just remove a structure — it closed a chapter. Now, the city must decide how it wants to remember the man who brought it Olympic glory.

Related

Bulldozer Justice: you can’t just roll in with bulldozers and demolish homes overnight: SC

Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

The post Ancestral home of Olympic Gold Medallist & Padma Shri Mohd. Shahid demolished in Varanasi Road widening drive appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Demolition drives

1. Ashok Vihar demolitions, Delhi: Bulldozers arrive at dawn

In a sweeping demolition drive, a special task force accompanied by a heavy police and paramilitary presence razed over 300 jhuggis (slum dwellings) in the Ashok Vihar area of North Delhi on a Monday morning. The operation, led by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on June 16, targeted more than 200 structures in the densely populated Jailorwala Bagh slum cluster.

The demolition began early in the day, with authorities barricading access roads and deploying multiple bulldozers and personnel from various departments. According to the DDA, the operation exclusively targeted jhuggis whose occupants had already been allocated flats under the in-situ Jailorwala Bagh rehabilitation project or were deemed ineligible under the housing policy. Officials claimed that slums protected by court orders were left untouched.

The official line: The DDA defended the demolition as a lawful and necessary step, claiming that 1,078 families had already been resettled in newly constructed 1BHK flats on the same site. These apartments, developed at a cost of ₹421 crore and valued at ₹25 lakh each, were made available to the rehabilitated families for a highly subsidised rate of ₹1.4 lakh. Another 567 households were declared ineligible based on policy guidelines.

Eligibility, according to the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), depended on two criteria: inclusion in the 2012–2015 voter rolls and possession of at least one of twelve identity documents — such as a ration card, electricity bill, passport, or bank passbook. Disqualified families included those residing on upper floors without separate documentation, minors, and individuals who used their jhuggis for commercial purposes before January 1, 2015.

Authorities also pointed out that nine families successfully contested their rejection and were subsequently allotted homes via a lottery system. As per Times of India, DDA spokesperson asserted, “Due process was followed. We respected all High Court stay orders. The demolitions were confined to those already rehabilitated or found ineligible.”

Hundreds still without shelter: Despite these assurances, ground reports and testimonies from affected residents painted a more distressing picture. Multiple media reports, including The Indian Express, alleged they had been left out of the allotment process despite decades of residence and valid documentation. Rama Devi, a relative of one of the evicted residents, said, “Only about 1,000 families got flats. More than 500 families are still shelterless. We’ve been here for decades, working as street vendors and domestic workers. Now we are evicted without compensation or alternative housing.” Others voiced concerns about the conditions in the newly allotted apartments.

Simultaneous demolitions in Wazirpur: While Ashok Vihar was in the headlines, another anti-encroachment drive was underway in Wazirpur, where the Indian Railways removed hundreds of dwellings built along the tracks. Officials cited safety concerns, such as children playing dangerously close to railway lines and reduced visibility for train drivers. The operation marked the second major clearance in the area within a month.

Security was tight, with police and two companies of paramilitary personnel deployed to prevent any unrest. Officials reported that around 308 illegal dwellings were cleared during the operation.

A pattern emerges: The demolition at Ashok Vihar is only one instance in a broader series of evictions taking place across Delhi. In recent weeks, similar drives were carried out in Bhoomiheen Camp, Madrasi Camp, and most recently in Patel Nagar — where nearly 450 jhuggis were razed on June 11. These actions point to what housing rights activists call an escalating city-wide campaign to remove informal settlements under the guise of “urban renewal.”

The demolitions have sparked sharp political reactions. Former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal took to social media to accuse the BJP-led DDA of reneging on its promise of “Jahan Jhuggi, Wahan Makaan” (where there’s a slum, there’ll be a home). “What does the BJP want — to erase every slum in Delhi? Why did the Prime Minister lie during elections?” former CM Kejriwal posted on X.

आख़िर बीजेपी चाहती क्या है? क्या दिल्ली की सभी झुग्गियाँ तोड़ना चाहती है? तो फिर मोदी जी ने क्या चुनाव के वक्त झूठ बोला था – जहाँ झुग्गी, वहाँ मकान? https://t.co/kE6CLFVwiJ

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) June 16, 2025

AAP’s Delhi unit chief Saurabh Bharadwaj echoed the criticism, alleging betrayal and mass displacement.

भाजपा की सरकार जबसे आई है दिल्ली में गरीबों के घर और रोज़गार दोनों उजाड़े जा रहे है ।

मुख्यमंत्री रेखा गुप्ता पंजाब भ्रमण में लगी हुई हैं और यहाँ दिल्ली में रोज़ बुलडोज़र चलाया जा रहा हैं।

रेखा गुप्ता जी बतायें कि इन ग़रीब लोगों को उजाड़ने से पहले घर कहाँ दिए गए हैं ?

केंद्र… pic.twitter.com/ySJzhSXtXl

— Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) June 16, 2025

Former AAP MLA Akhilesh Pati Tripathi was detained by police while protesting against the Wazirpur demolition, further fuelling the political controversy.

भाजपा सरकार के बुलडोज़र का विरोध करने पर पूर्व विधायक अखिलेश पति त्रिपाठी पुलिस की हिरासत में लिए गए

भाजपा सरकार लगातार गरीबों के घरों पर बुलडोज़र चला रही है । pic.twitter.com/y9m3HpWZF1

— Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) June 16, 2025

Congress calls for ordinance, cites precedent: As per the Hindustan Times, the Delhi Congress had called on the city’s BJP administration to bring in an ordinance to immediately halt all demolition of slum clusters. Drawing a parallel with a similar move by the Sheila Dikshit-led Congress government in 2011, party leaders said such a step is necessary to prevent a humanitarian disaster.

“Just as the 2011 ordinance saved lakhs of homes, the current BJP government should pass one urgently to protect the poor from becoming homeless,” said Delhi Congress president Devender Yadav, after visiting displaced families in Govindpuri — where nearly 350 homes were bulldozed.

Yadav further alleged that widespread corruption and administrative apathy had excluded long-time residents from the eligibility survey. “People who’ve lived here for 30–40 years were left out deliberately. This, despite court orders in their favour,” he said, as per the HT report. “The BJP doesn’t want to end poverty — it wants to eliminate the poor from the city.”

2. Jamnagar, Gujarat: 7.74 lakh sq. ft. of government land cleared; structure under probe

In Jamnagar, Gujarat, authorities carried out an extensive demolition drive in the Bacchunagar area on June 15, clearing nearly 7.74 lakh square feet of what they described as illegally occupied government land. The cleared land, estimated to be worth approximately ₹193 crore, was reclaimed by a joint operation involving the Jamnagar district administration and police, amid tight security and logistical coordination.

During the course of the operation, as per the report of India Today, officials came across a large structure concealed from public view. Spread over 11,000 square feet, the structure bore the features of a religious site (dargah), and was built with marble flooring, several rooms, and a specially equipped bathing facility. The high-value construction, reportedly erected without authorisation, immediately drew the attention of the district authorities.

The Superintendent of Police, Premsukh Delu, stated that while there were signboards prohibiting donations and access to outsiders, the source of funding for the construction remains unclear. “The nature of the building and its lack of transparency regarding access or finance has raised suspicion. We are currently investigating whether the structure was being used for activities beyond religious purposes,” Delu said, as per Times of India.

A formal inquiry has been initiated to determine ownership, the legality of the construction, and potential links to unlawful activities, if any. Authorities have stated that the building was not listed in official land use records and had no apparent legal sanction for occupation of public land.

This operation is part of a wider effort by the Gujarat administration to remove what it categorises as unauthorised encroachments on state-owned land. The Jamnagar district collectorate has said that further reviews of government land titles in the region are underway, and additional demolitions may follow if more violations are identified.

3. Govindpuri, Delhi: 300+ jhuggis demolished amid heatwave

In the early hours of June 11, 2025, bulldozers rolled into Bhoomiheen Camp, a longstanding informal settlement in Govindpuri, South-East Delhi, as part of a demolition operation conducted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The drive began around 5:00 a.m., catching many residents off guard. By noon, under a red alert heatwave with temperatures exceeding 45°C, hundreds of families were left out in the open, their homes razed to the ground.

DDA cites court orders, says most structures were ‘uninhabited’: As per the report of The Hindu, the DDA claimed that the demolition was carried out strictly on government land encroached by 344 jhuggi structures. In its statement, the authority said that notices were issued on June 9, giving a three-day window for residents to vacate. The DDA further stated that no court stay order was in effect, and that many of the demolished structures were “uninhabited.”

However, visuals from the ground and testimonies from residents contradicted these assertions, with dozens of families scrambling to retrieve belongings as their homes were torn down. Many affected families are migrant workers and daily-wage earners who have been living in the camp for years, some for decades.

AAP questions BJP-led government’s credibility: The demolition triggered immediate political backlash. Atishi, senior AAP leader and Leader of Opposition in the Delhi Assembly, directly called out Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, questioning her credibility. In a pointed post on X (formerly Twitter), she wrote:

“BJP’s bulldozer started running in the Bhoomiheen camp from 5 a.m. this morning. Rekha Gupta — you said three days ago that not even a single slum would be demolished. Then why are bulldozers running here?”

ग़रीब विरोधी पार्टी है बीजेपी

मुख्यमंत्री रेखा गुप्ता जी ने कहा था, दिल्ली में एक भी झुग्गी को छुआ तक नहीं जाएगा लेकिन आज यहां भूमिहीन कैंप पर सुबह 5 बजे से बुलडोजर चल रहा है।

बीजेपी की DDA और दिल्ली सरकार ने कोर्ट में अपने बड़े-बड़े वकील इन गरीबों के ख़िलाफ़ खड़े किए और कहा… pic.twitter.com/ob2PNKrGcj

— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) June 11, 2025

ये है भाजपा का असली चेहरा।

गरीबों से वोट लेकर फिर उन्हें ही बेघर कर देना। सुबह 5 बजे बुलडोज़र लेकर भूमिहीन कैंप पहुँची बीजेपी सरकार ने हज़ारों गरीबों के आशियाने उजाड़ दिए। बीजेपी को न गरीबों की परवाह है, न इंसानियत की।

बीजेपी का ‘जहां झुग्गी-वहां मकान’ का वादा अब ‘जहां… pic.twitter.com/GseSRgiz2H

— Atishi (@AtishiAAP) June 11, 2025

Former CM Atishi had visited the Bhoomiheen Camp the previous day and was reportedly detained by police while meeting residents, though police later denied the detention.

In response, Chief Minister Rekha Gupta reiterated that the state government could not defy court-directed demolitions, and maintained that alternative accommodation had been provided. However, no data was shared about how many residents had actually been rehabilitated before the eviction.

The timing of the demolition — amid a red alert heatwave issued by the India Meteorological Department — had drawn condemnation. The IMD’s red alert for Delhi explicitly warned of potential “heat illness and heatstroke in all age groups”, particularly for people without access to adequate shelter.

4. Jangpura, Delhi: 50-Year-Old Madrasi camp demolished, over 150 families left without homes

On June 1, 2025, authorities demolished the decades-old Madrasi Camp settlement in Jangpura, South Delhi, displacing hundreds of Tamil-origin residents who had lived there for over five decades. The demolition was carried out in compliance with a Delhi High Court order citing flood risk concerns ahead of the monsoon, as the settlement was situated along the Barapullah drain.

The cluster had become a well-established working-class neighbourhood, housing 370 families, many of whom worked in the informal economy and public services. But as bulldozers flattened the area, questions have emerged over the legality, adequacy, and humanity of the rehabilitation process — and whether the state’s actions respected the displaced community’s rights.

Government claims vs ground reality: In the immediate aftermath of the demolition, Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta defended the operation, stating to the media that, “No one can defy court orders. Residents of that camp have been allotted houses and shifted.”

However, examination of the figures contradicts the government’s blanket assurance of rehabilitation. As per the report of The Wire, while the state claimed that all affected households were relocated to EWS (Economically Weaker Section) flats in Narela, only 189 of the 370 families were initially allotted flats. A further 26 families were later given accommodations. That leaves at least 155 families — over 40% of the entire community — without any alternative shelter.

These residents have been rendered homeless despite having lived in the settlement for decades, raising serious questions about the eligibility criteria, the documentation required, and whether the state fulfilled its legal obligation to ensure prior resettlement before demolition, as per judicial precedents and guidelines laid down in various Supreme Court judgments.

Historical and social context ignored: Madrasi Camp had been one of Delhi’s oldest informal settlements, inhabited primarily by Tamil-speaking Dalit and working-class communities, many of whom had migrated during the 1970s and 1980s for employment in the city. Despite their long-standing presence, residents alleged that they were not given sufficient prior notice, and that the verification process for rehabilitation was flawed and opaque, leaving hundreds ineligible due to technicalities.

The lack of transparency, participation, and timely redressal in these drives has raised serious concerns about the urban poor’s right to housing, especially in a city where informal settlements often fill the vacuum left by inadequate public housing policies.

5. Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh: GNIDA plans demolition of over 20 alleged informal colonies

The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) has announced a major demolition campaign targeting more than 20 alleged informal settlements and unauthorised constructions across its jurisdiction. The clearance drive, expected to begin in late June or early July 2025, will be carried out jointly with the district administration and police, and will involve heavy machinery and on-ground security deployment.

While officials describe the campaign as a necessary step to “bring discipline and fairness in land use”, local activists and housing rights groups have raised concerns over the absence of rehabilitation guarantees or transparency in verifying whether affected residents were knowingly complicit in the alleged violations.

According to GNIDA’s Additional CEO, Sumit Yadav, the authority has prepared a ward-wise list of all areas marked for action. “Despite regular advisories and warnings, illegal colonies have continued to proliferate,” Yadav said as per a HT report, adding that earthmovers will be used to clear structures built without formal approval.

Many of the settlements now facing demolition were established after agricultural land was illegally sold and converted into residential plots by private colonisers — often without informing buyers that the land was not approved for habitation under the city’s master plan. Residents, many of whom have invested their life savings, now face eviction without clarity on alternative arrangements or accountability for the fraudulent transactions.

GNIDA claims that it acquires land from farmers under planned urban development schemes, in accordance with a notified master plan that demarcates zones for roads, utilities, and various types of land use. “Plots are meant to be allocated for approved residential, industrial, institutional, and commercial purposes. But certain colonisers have been subverting this by carving out unauthorised colonies and misleading buyers,” a senior official said, according to the HT report.

The authority said the decision to launch this campaign was taken after a recent inter-departmental strategy meeting, and that strict action would be taken not only against settlers but also against land mafias and intermediaries involved in the unauthorised conversion and sale of land.

In response to anticipated backlash, the authority has urged citizens to verify land status before purchasing plots, pointing them to the GNIDA website and land records department for ownership and land use verification. However, critics argue that such post-facto advisories offer little solace to low-income buyers now facing homelessness.

The upcoming clearance operation forms part of a wider pattern of urban land enforcement seen across Indian cities, where rapid development pressures and speculative real estate markets have frequently clashed with housing rights and the reality of widespread informal urbanisation.

Cases concerning demolitions before Courts:

1. Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC’s demolition order in case involving land mafia and illegal construction

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on June 17, 2025, upheld the Bombay High Court’s interim order directing the demolition of 17 illegally constructed buildings in Thane, Maharashtra—structures alleged to have been built by builders with links to the underworld, and without any sanction or ownership over the land.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan dismissed a special leave petition filed by a flat purchaser who contended that she and other innocent buyers—over 400 families—were being rendered homeless despite no wrongdoing on their part. The petitioner also highlighted that she was a senior citizen who had made representations to multiple state authorities, including the Chief Minister, but had received no redressal.

However, the Court declined to intervene, observing that the buildings were constructed on third-party land without any approvals, and backed the Bombay High Court’s strong stance against what it described as a “land mafia” operation that had flourished due to state inaction and complicity.

As per LiveLaw, Justice Manmohan had remarked: “Kudos to the High Court for taking a right decision… there is no rule of law when such massive illegal constructions come up with underworld backing. Unless action is taken against these unscrupulous builders, this will continue — people will keep fighting gorilla battles using the shoulders of innocent buyers. That must stop.”

Justice Bhuyan questioned how individuals were able to purchase flats in such projects without proper documentation, suggesting buyers must seek redress against the builders in appropriate forums.

Notably, the Bombay High Court, in its June 12 order, had acknowledged the plight of the petitioner but noted that: “Such construction could not have come up except with the blessings of the government and municipal officers… It is shocking that such brazen illegalities were allowed to persist, ultimately defrauding innocent flat purchasers.”

The High Court had empowered the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) to proceed with the demolition without waiting for further orders, given the scale of illegality and the urgency of reclaiming the encroached land. The original writ petition in the High Court was filed by a woman who claimed ownership over the encroached land, and alleged that unauthorised five-storey structures had been erected by the land mafia in violation of planning laws. Although the petitioner before the Supreme Court was allowed to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the High Court, the interim demolition order continues to stand, signalling a tough judicial posture against illegal construction and official collusion.

2. Supreme Court stays Dargah demolition for 7 days, allows trust to seek recall of Bombay HC order

In a significant intervention on June 17, the Supreme Court stayed the demolition of a disputed dargah structure in Thane for a period of seven days, offering a limited but crucial window of relief to the Pardeshi Baba Trust, which has been locked in a long-standing legal battle over the structure’s legality. A vacation bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale passed the interim order while hearing a special leave petition challenging the Bombay High Court’s recent demolition directive.

The case centres on a shrine in Thane, which, according to official records and court proceedings, originally occupied just 160 square feet. Over the years, the structure is alleged to have expanded without necessary municipal approvals, eventually occupying a built-up area of over 17,610 square feet. The land itself is private, and the expansion has been challenged by the original landowner, setting off a prolonged legal conflict that has played out across multiple forums over the last two decades.

In its recent order, the Bombay High Court had strongly rebuked both the Trust and the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC). Asper LiveLaw, the High Court labelled the Trust’s actions as “unscrupulous” and accused the civic body of filing “evasive affidavits.” The court directed the demolition of all unauthorised portions of the structure, expressing frustration at what it viewed as blatant land encroachment under the pretext of religious activity. The TMC had earlier filed reports confirming that the expansion had taken place without planning permission and that certain parts of the structure had been rebuilt even after prior demolition action was initiated.

Pardeshi Baba Trust contests order, cites omitted Civil Suit dismissal: Appearing for the Pardeshi Baba Trust, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi submitted that the Bombay High Court had failed to consider a crucial fact—the dismissal of a related civil suit in April 2025. According to Ahmadi, the Trust had informed the High Court about the suit in its pleadings, but the High Court neither referred to it nor addressed its implications in the demolition order. He argued that the High Court’s failure to engage with this material development severely undermined the fairness of the demolition directive.

According to the report of LiveLaw, Ahmadi also challenged the extent of the alleged encroachment. He contended that the High Court had mistakenly assumed the entire 17,610 sq. ft. to be illegal construction, while in fact, the dispute pertained to only 3,600 sq. ft. He further accused the landowner of exaggerating the extent of the unauthorised area and argued that the demolition order went well beyond the scope of the writ petition.

On the other side, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the private landowner, strongly defended the High Court’s conclusions. She said the Trust had engaged in a deliberate and systematic land grab under the guise of religion and that the High Court’s remarks were justified. She pointed to municipal inspection reports and photographic evidence showing that the illegal portions had not only been constructed without approval, but some had also been rebuilt in contempt of earlier orders. Divan also accused the Trust of playing procedural games to delay enforcement and shield the encroachment.

Supreme Court criticises omission, offers limited relief: After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court bench expressed concern about procedural irregularities, particularly the Trust’s claim that the High Court had failed to consider the dismissal of the civil suit. Justice Sandeep Mehta called this omission “embarrassing” and noted that had the High Court been made fully aware of the civil proceedings’ outcome, its decision might have been different.

“We propose to give them permission to file a recall in view of the fact that the High Court seems to have omitted to consider the fact of the disposal of the suit,” the bench observed orally during the hearing, as reported by LiveLaw.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Trust to approach the Bombay High Court with a recall application and ordered that the demolition be paused for a period of seven days to allow this process to unfold. The Court clarified that it was not deciding on the legality of the construction but only intervening on procedural grounds. It also left open the possibility for the Trust to return to the Supreme Court if the High Court declines to entertain the recall application. The Court made it clear that no further demolition would take place during this interim window. The legal status of the structure, the extent of unauthorised construction, and the validity of past permissions, if any, remain to be conclusively decided.

3. Bombay High Court slaps ₹1 lakh cost on journalist for PIL against SRA Project

On June 17, 2025, the Bombay High Court imposed ₹1 lakh in costs on petitioner Ankush Jaiswal, a self-proclaimed electronic media journalist, for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the demolition of a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) project in Kandivali (East), Mumbai, which the court deemed to be a gross abuse of the legal process.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne found that the PIL lacked any genuine public interest and was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, since a similar plea filed by the same petitioner had already been dismissed by another bench in September 2022.

The impugned building—comprising six wings—is part of the Bandongri Ekta Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., developed under the SRA scheme. Jaiswal alleged multiple regulatory violations, including failure to maintain statutory distance from the National Highway and non-obtaining of requisite No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) prior to construction.

However, as per LiveLaw, the bench took serious note of the fact that:

• The petitioner approached the court 22 years after the project’s completion,
• He himself resides in the same SRA building that he claimed was “dangerous to life”,
• And that the rehabilitated slum dwellers would be rendered homeless if the court were to entertain such a plea.

The Court remarked that the PIL amounted to a “serious violation of the constitutional guarantee of shelter” for those already rehabilitated and questioned whether Jaiswal sought to push residents back onto the streets under the guise of public interest.

According to LiveLaw, dismissing the petition, the bench observed:

“The petition is an abuse of process. The plea is devoid of public interest and suffers from the bar of res judicata. It is not the function of the court to unsettle rehabilitation that has been completed decades ago, especially at the instance of one who continues to reside in the very building he attacks.”

The Court directed that the cost be recovered from the ₹1 lakh deposit previously made by the petitioner to demonstrate his bona fides, and the sum be transferred to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MSLSA).

4. Telangana High Court stays demolition of shopping complex adjacent to Peddapalli Government Hospital

On June 17, 2025, the Telangana High Court passed an interim order suspending the proposed demolition of a shopping complex adjacent to the Peddapalli Government Hospital, offering relief to the petitioner, Kishan Prakash Jhawer, who had filed a writ petition challenging the notice of eviction issued to him by state authorities.

Justice K. Sarath granted the stay after hearing arguments that the demolition was arbitrary, politically motivated, and unsupported by legal justification.

Background of the case

• The petitioner entered into a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement with the Medical Department in 2007, granting him rights to operate the shopping complex for 25 years.
• On May 22, 2025, authorities issued a notice asking the petitioner to vacate the premises.
• The petitioner’s counsel, Deepak Misra, argued that this notice was based on oral instructions from the local MLA, with no legal basis.
• He also highlighted that separate proceedings were initiated in July 2024 for demolition and reconstruction of the dilapidated hospital building, not the shopping complex.

Petitioner’s arguments

• The notice lacked legal authority and cited no formal decision or government order mandating the shopping complex’s demolition.
• The shopping complex was an independent structure, not part of the old hospital building slated for reconstruction.
• The impugned action was arbitrary, motivated by political influence, and violative of contractual rights under the BOT lease.

Court’s order: Justice K. Sarath observed that a prima facie case was made out by the petitioner and stayed the proposed demolition until further hearing.

The Court emphasised that demolition of a separate, lawfully leased structure under the pretext of hospital redevelopment requires proper legal procedure, and politically driven oral instructions cannot override statutory contracts.

5. Delhi High Court grants interim relief against demolition in Batla House

On June 16, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted interim protection against demolition to six properties in the Batla House locality of Okhla, South East Delhi, in response to petitions filed by residents challenging the legality of notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Justice Tejas Karia directed that status quo be maintained until the next date of hearing and issued notice to the DDA, requiring a response within four weeks. The matter is scheduled for hearing on July 10, 2025, before the roster bench.

Background of the Dispute: The petitioners — Heena Parveen, Jinat Kausar, Rukhsana Begam, Nihal Fatima, Sufiyan Ahmed, Sajid Fakhar, among others — approached the Court after receiving generic demolition notices from DDA in May 2025, targeting properties allegedly situated within Khasra Number 279.

Their core arguments included:

• Lack of demarcation: Petitioners argued that not all properties within Khasra No. 279 are illegal, and some lie outside its boundary. The DDA had failed to provide precise demarcation or individualised assessment in the notices.
• PM-UDAY scheme coverage: Several petitioners claimed their properties were covered under the PM-UDAY scheme, which provides a framework for legalising unauthorized colonies in Delhi.
• Historic occupancy: Some petitioners, such as Nihal Fatima, claimed residence in the area since 1980–82, asserting that the structures were purchased from builders and were supported by documents — albeit some in Urdu and Farsi, which were later translated.

DDA’s stand and Supreme Court reference: The DDA’s standing counsel opposed the plea, arguing that the demarcation report had already been submitted before the Supreme Court, and a demolition order dated June 4, 2025, was passed based on that.

However, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier order of May 7, which clarified that occupants were free to seek appropriate legal remedies, thereby legitimising the High Court’s jurisdiction in entertaining the present petitions.

The Court also referenced a June 4 order in Ishrat Jahan’s case, where it had directed the DDA to file a detailed affidavit on demarcation and proposed action, due within three weeks.

Related:

Bulldozer Justice: How Unlawful Demolitions are Targeting India’s Marginalised Communities

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

Public officials must face accountability for unlawful demolition actions, rule of law to be upheld: Supreme Court

Bulldozer Justice: SC orders Rs 25 Lakhs interim Compensation for illegal demolition by UP Govt in 2019

The post Razed to the ground, taken to Court: The legal and social fallout of India’s demolition drives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through strong language and principled restraint, the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih sent a clear message to public servants across India—no one is immune from the consequences of flouting judicial authority, and arrogance of power is no defense when confronted with the authority of law.

Factual background

The roots of the case trace back to the actions of the petitioner while serving as a Tahsildar in the Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. During his tenure, the petitioner oversaw a demolition operation targeting a slum settlement, despite the existence of a categorical direction from the Andhra Pradesh High Court prohibiting any such eviction or demolition.

According to records and the observations of the High Court, the petitioner orchestrated the demolition using a force of approximately 80 police personnel, thereby displacing numerous slum-dwellers, many of whom were from socio-economically weaker sections. The Court emphasized the inhumanity and callous disregard for judicial authority in his conduct.

Upon discovering this blatant breach, the Andhra Pradesh High Court initiated contempt proceedings, resulting in a finding of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 2 months’ simple imprisonment.

The petitioner, by then promoted to the rank of Deputy Collector, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, challenging the sentence imposed, though not disputing the conviction.

The May 6 Hearing: Disobedience, arrogance, and judicial rebuke

During the hearing on May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court, having earlier issued notice on the sentencing aspect, explored the possibility of adopting a non-custodial punishment, considering the petitioner’s family circumstances, particularly his two children studying in Classes XI and XII.

The Bench had asked Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka, appearing for the petitioner, to seek instructions on whether the officer was willing to accept demotion to his original rank of Deputy Tahsildar as a substitute for imprisonment.

However, when the matter resumed on May 6, Bharuka informed the Court that the petitioner had categorically refused to accept demotion. This response shocked and angered the Bench, which had already shown considerable leniency.

As per a report of LiveLaw, Justice Gavai observed:

“We were trying to save his career for the sake of his children. But his adamant attitude shows exactly how he must have treated the High Court’s orders—with defiance and contempt.”

Justice Gavai questioned the petitioner’s lack of remorse, invoking a piercing moral argument:

“When you led 80 policemen to demolish homes of the poor, did you remember God then?”

Even though the Court offered a middle path—to demote him only to the post of Tahsildar instead of the originally proposed Deputy Tahsildar—the petitioner remained unyielding. The Court warned that such arrogance and non-cooperation would not go unpunished.

The Bench went so far as to threaten dismissal and career-ending observations in the Court’s final order. According to the LiveLaw report, Justice Gavai issued a sharp caution:

“If he remains this adamant, not only will we dismiss the petition, but we’ll pass such stringent remarks that no authority will dare reinstate him. He thinks he’s close to the government—he must be a protocol director—but that doesn’t protect him from the law.”

Ultimately, on Bharuka’s request, the matter was adjourned to May 9, with the Bench giving a final opportunity for the petitioner to reconsider his position. Before adjourning the matter to May 9, the Court again urged Bharuka to convince the petitioner, stating that the window for leniency was quickly closing. Justice Gavai concluded the session with a damning indictment of the petitioner’s character:

“He threw people out of their homes. We don’t want to become like him.”

This moment revealed the Court’s moral compass—driven by law, but not devoid of empathy.

Arguments advanced by the parties:

Petitioner sought leniency in sentencing, citing:

• The potential loss of livelihood if the officer was imprisoned.
• The educational needs of the petitioner’s two children, studying in Classes XI and XII.
• The economic impact on the family.

• Emphasised the absence of malicious intent behind the demolition.

Respondent opposed leniency, arguing:

• The act amounted to a gross abuse of power.
• It was a deliberate, calculated disobedience of a judicial order.
• The officer’s callousness towards poor slum dwellers demonstrated complete insensitivity.

The May 9 Judgment: Conviction confirmed, sentence modified

When the matter was resumed on May 9, the petitioner, through counsel, finally agreed to the Court’s proposal for demotion, prompting the Bench to adopt a measured sentencing approach. Emphasizing the sanctity of judicial authority, the Court declared that no public servant, regardless of rank, can flout court orders with impunity. The bench observed:

“When a Constitutional Court or for that matter, any court issues any direction, every person or authority regardless of rank, is duty bound to respect and comply with that order. Disobedience of the orders passed by the court attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which the edifice of a democracy is based.” (Para 16)

“The majesty of law lies not only in punishing but also in forgiving when appropriate.” (Para 11)

Though the Court took a lenient view of the sentence to protect the interests of the officer’s family—particularly his two school-going daughters—it maintained a firm stance on the principle of accountability. Justice Gavai explained that the lenient sentence was not because the petitioner was entitled to it, but because of the collateral impact on his innocent family:

“While we are of the considered view that the appellant does not merit any leniency on account of his adamant and callous conduct, we find that his children and family should not suffer as a consequence of his actions.” (Para 12)

A custodial sentence, the Court observed, would lead to dismissal from service and deprive his family of livelihood. Hence, a balance was struck by demoting the officer and fining him. The Court rebuked the petitioner for expecting humanitarian consideration while himself having acted in a “cruel and inhumane” manner toward vulnerable slum dwellers. The bench made it clear that compassion cannot be a one-way street:

“We are of the view that the appellant ought to have considered the consequences before demolishing the structures of the home dwellers and throwing them on the road along with their belongings and that too despite of the specific warnings given to him by the High Court in its order dated 11th December 2013.” (Para 8)

“The actions of the appellant were inhumane. If the appellant expects this Court to take a humanitarian approach, such conduct was not expected from him.” (Para 9)

The Bench made it clear that this order would be reportable, underscoring its precedential value and public importance.

Observations of the Court in its judgement

1. Wilful disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The judgment affirms the importance of strict liability in contempt cases involving public servants. The petitioner’s act of leading a demolition drive in defiance of a High Court order fits squarely within the statutory definition of civil contempt (Section 2(b))—i.e., “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court.”

The petitioner neither denied the act nor contested the High Court’s finding—only the sentence. This posture itself demonstrated a lack of contrition, further justifying the Supreme Court’s harsh words and disciplinary outcome.

2. Constitutional Principles: Rule of law and judicial supremacy

The Court’s declaration—“No one, howsoever high, is above the law”—reiterates Article 14 (equality before law) and the rule of law doctrine, which anchors the Indian constitutional framework.

In asserting that all public authorities are bound to comply with judicial directions, the Court reaffirmed the idea that judicial decisions are binding, not advisory. Any defiance is not merely administrative overreach—it is a constitutional violation.

3. Doctrine of proportionality in sentencing

While upholding the conviction, the Court applied the doctrine of proportionality in modifying the sentence. It balanced:

• The gravity of the misconduct (violence, illegal eviction),
• The need to protect judicial authority,
• And the mitigating circumstances (impact on the petitioner’s children, loss of livelihood).

By opting for demotion instead of jail time, the Court imposed a meaningful penalty that retains institutional deterrence, yet spares innocent dependents. This is a progressive model of judicial balancing, serving both justice and mercy.

4. Accountability in public office

This case signals a strong institutional message to bureaucrats and political functionaries: administrative power is not a shield against accountability. The petitioner’s reliance on political proximity and his title as “Director of Protocol” was dismissed as irrelevant to his duty to obey court orders.

Key directions and rationale of the court

• The petitioner was demoted from Deputy Collector to Tahsildar, with a direction that future promotions may only be considered from this new post.
• He must also pay a fine of ₹1 lakh within four weeks.
• The Court underscored that serving 48 hours in jail would have resulted in automatic dismissal from service, potentially jeopardizing the livelihood of his entire family—including two school-going children. This humanitarian concern led the Court to temper the sentence, while not absolving the officer of guilt.

Conclusion: A Judicial Message for the Nation

This judgment is far more than a disciplinary order—it is a constitutional proclamation. It reasserts the inviolability of judicial orders, calls out bureaucratic impunity, and restores faith in the majesty of the law. It demonstrates how the Supreme Court can be stern without being cruel, compassionate without being weak.

Through sharp rebuke and calibrated justice, the Court has immortalized a powerful message:

“Disobedience of the orders passed by the court attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which the edifice of a democracy is based.” (Para 16)

This case will serve as a template for future contempt proceedings, a reminder to public officials about their constitutional obligations, and an example of how courts can defend the powerless against the powerful.

The complete judgement may be read below.

Related:

FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

Not Fragile, Not Silent: SC chooses principle over punishment in response to BJP MP Dubey’s outburst, reasserts role as Constitutional check

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

The post “No One is Above the Law”: Supreme Court demotes Deputy Collector for demolishing a slum settlement by flouting HC order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Addressing a press conference here on Wednesday, the Delhi state CPI(M) said the poor families were evicted despite showing valid documents.

Reminding BJP of its promise of “Jahan Jhuggi, Wahaan Makaan”, the CPI(M) demanded rehabilitation in situ, or within a 5 km radius, to ensure continued access to livelihoods, education, essential services and community.

“Construction of flats on nearby vacant DDA land should be undertaken, if no appropriate housing is available, to comply with protocols and legal obligation,” it said in a statement.

The party also called for a fair and transparent survey and appeals process, “ensuring that long-term residents—many of whom have lived in the camp for over 60 years—are not wrongfully excluded.”

Read the full press release below:

*BJP GOVT MUST FULFIL THEIR PROMISE OF ‘JAHAN JHUGGI WAHAN MAKAAN’

CPI(M) Delhi State Committee strongly condemns the inhumane demolition and forced eviction threat facing over 400 working-class families in Madrasi Camp, Jangpura-B — one of Delhi’s oldest recognised bastis. This 60-year-old jhuggi cluster near the Barapulla Drain of South East Delhi is part of the DUSIB’s notified slums list and eligible for legal protection as per the NCT of Delhi Special Provisions Act, 2011.

Despite possessing valid documentation, one-third of households have been arbitrarily denied rehabilitation, while those deemed “eligible” are being cast out to Narela—50 km away—in clear violation of all protocols. Government agencies are simultaneously pushing for demolition of the jhuggi cluster even as the rehabilitation process remains ongoing, an action that is both illegal and indefensible.

The Act clearly states that “Jhuggi Jhopri Bastis which have come up before 01.01.2006 shall not be removed (as per National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011) without providing them alternate housing. Jhuggis which have come up in such Jhuggi Jhopri Bastis before 01.01.2015 shall not be demolished without providing alternate housing.”

The Para 2(a)(iii) of the Delhi Slum & Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy of 2015 underlines: “In-situ rehabilitation – Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board shall provide alternate accommodation to those living in Jhuggi Jhopri Bastis, either on the same land or in the vicinity within a radius of five kilometers. In case of exceptional circumstances, it can even go beyond five kilometers with prior approval of the Board.

Dispossession of the Poor in the Guise of Drain Cleaning

Upon the directions of the High Court (W.P. (C) 8035/2024) in July 2024, the DDA with other government departments, incorrectly identified Madrasi Camp as an encroachment along the drain flowing into Yamuna. Following this, the issue of eviction and rehabilitation is being considered in Court. The classification of the settlement as an encroachment is an executive decision—not a judicial directive. On October 5, 2024 the Irrigation and Flood Control Department hurriedly submitted a map indicating the Madrasi Camp obstructs the flow of the Barapullah drain. However, an independent fact-finding report by senior engineer experts from IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay has identified the nearby bridges and flyover as the primary cause of drainage obstruction, not the settlement.

Jumla of BJP’s Electoral Promises 

A 2024 Housing and Land Rights Network report reveals that Delhi led India in evictions during 2022–23, with 78 clearance operations displacing roughly 278,796 people. This stark reality lays bare the hypocrisy of the previous LG-led administration and the current “triple engine sarkar” in Delhi, which campaigned on promises to protect slum dwellers. The BJP’s promises—most notably “Jahan Jhuggi, Wahaan Makaan”—now ring hollow as families face forced eviction without appropriate rehabilitation. Unless the Delhi and Central government immediately directs its agencies to halt demolitions and deliver on in situ rehabilitation, its flagship slogan will be remembered as a cruelpolitical gimmick.

Violation of Due Process & Rights

The residents of Madrasi Camp are citizens, not encroachers, as repeatedly claimed by the government and their lawyers. They vote, work, raise families, and contribute to society. Subjecting them to repeated humiliation—treating them as illegals—violates their constitutional rights. Even as the courts are deliberating on the case, the PWD and Delhi Police are issuing demolition notices in absolute disregard for protocols.

The Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy of 2015 underlines under clause D(5) DUSIB will fix the date of removal of the said JJ basti and send an appropriate intimation to the local police authorities for providing security and maintaining law and order. No police will be provided to any agency in Delhi for removal of JJ bastis without the approval/letter from CEO, DUSIB.

Proper Rehabilitation Must Precede Eviction

We strongly oppose any demolition, forced eviction or relocation to Narela, which lies nearly 50 km away from their current settlement. Such a move would severely disrupt their livelihoods, cut off access to essential services like schools and healthcare, and push families further into economic hardship.

CPI(M) Delhi Demands:

1. Immediate halt to all evictions and demolitions until every resident’s appeal is fairly heard and resolved.

2. Rehabilitation in-situ, or within a 5 km radius, per the ‘Jahan Jhuggi, Wahaan Makaan’ promise and government policies, to ensure continued access to livelihoods, education, essential services and community. Construction of flats on nearby vacant DDA land should be undertaken, if no appropriate housing is available, to comply with protocols and legal obligation.

3. Preservation of livelihoods and access to essential services by avoiding displacement to distant and disconnected areas like Narela.

4. A fair and transparent survey and appeals process, ensuring that long-term residents—many of whom have lived in the camp for over 60 years—are not wrongfully excluded. Initiation of direct social dialogue with residents, ensuring meaningful participation in the rehabilitation process.

5. An end to the scapegoating of working-class communities for flooding, when evidence points to flawed infrastructure as the actual cause. The government must also allow independent scientific studies to be conducted instead of blaming the poor for its failures to control and manage floods.

The bulldozer will not decide who belongs in Delhi.

The NGT’s 2019 order to clear unauthorised structures across the Yamuna floodplain or drains has been exploited by the BJP-led central government to displace working class bastis—treating longstanding communities as ‘encroachments’ and triggering largescale evictions without proper rehabilitation. Under the guise of “riverfront revitalization” and “beautification drives”, land is being cleared for 24×7 entertainment complexes and commercial developments that serve corporate interests, not public welfare.

CPI(M) condemns this grotesque inversion of environmentalism, where the rights of the working class are sacrificed to fuel real estate profits.

The CPI(M) is a working-class party dedicated to defending the rights of labourers, informal workers, and marginalised communities—whose toil sustains this city. In coalition with other Left parties and democratic organisations, we will mount a broad-based struggle against the DDA’s bulldozer politics and the BJP-led governments that treat human lives as expendable obstacles to their pro-corporate and anti-people development agenda. We stand in unbreakable solidarity with the residents of Madrasi Camp and the lakhs of marginalised families facing dispossession. The bulldozer will not decide who belongs in Delhi.

Anurag Saxena,

State Secretary, CPI(M) Delhi

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Madrasi Camp Demolition: CPI(M) Delhi Demands Halt to Evictions, Rehab Within 5 Km appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While hearing the contempt petition, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had issued the notice, which is returnable within three weeks, and also ordered both parties to maintain the status quo during this period. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioners, argued that the state had committed an “egregious violation” of the Court’s order. In response, Justice Gavai noted that no demolitions had taken place, to which Ahmadi replied that demolition notices had been issued, and such actions would likely continue unless stopped. The Court then ordered the parties to maintain the current situation until the case is resolved.

The contempt petition, filed on September 28, alleged that Assam authorities were in breach of the Court’s interim order from September 17, which had halted all demolition activities across the country without the Court’s express permission. It is pertinent to note that this order, however, did not apply to demolitions involving encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies.

On September 17, a Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had issued a significant interim order halting demolition actions nationwide while hearing a series of petitions against bulldozer-driven demolitions in various states. The bench highlighted the need to uphold constitutional principles, with Justice Viswanathan stressing that even one instance of an illegal demolition would undermine the rule of law, which should always prevail over arbitrary executive actions. (Details may be read here)

More about the petition filed by the Assam residents:

By filing the contempt petition, the petitioners had alleged that authorities in Assam have violated the Supreme Court’s order by marking their homes for demolition without issuing any prior notice, claiming they were encroaching on the land. The petition, which seeks contempt proceedings against the officials involved for demolishing their houses.

The petition references a previous order from the Gauhati High Court, dated September 20, 2024, in which the Advocate General of Assam gave an undertaking that no action would be taken against the petitioners until their representations were addressed. However, the authorities allegedly proceeded with the demolitions, further violating court orders.

According to LiveLaw, the petition stated that “The right to housing and shelter is a fundamental right as repeatedly affirmed by this Hon’ble Court and is integral to the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This fundamental right cannot be infringed without following due process of law. Thus, the demolition of properties by the authorities in Assam as a punitive measure for alleged crimes also violates this right.”

The petitioners, residents of Kachutoli Pathar and neighbouring areas in the Sonapur mouza of Kamrup Metro district, assert that their occupation was legally valid through power of attorney agreements with the original landholders (pattadars). While they do not claim ownership of the land, they argue their residence is lawful under these agreements. The petition challenges the administration’s classification of them as “illegal occupiers” or “encroachers” on tribal lands, pointing out that some of the pattadars who permitted them to stay are part of the protected tribal class.

The petitioners clarify that they have never claimed ownership or altered the land’s nature, arguing that the land has been in their families’ possession since the 1920s—long before the establishment of tribal belts in 1950 under a government notification. They also emphasise that they have essential services like electricity, ration cards, Aadhaar cards, and voter ID cards, all based on their residency. They maintain they have not violated the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, as they have not changed the nature of the land.

Further, the petition highlights that portions of the tribal belt are inhabited by non-tribal people, while other areas where tribals are a minority are still included in the tribal belt. The petitioners stress that for several decades they have lived peacefully alongside tribals and other communities, without causing any disputes or conflicts. Evicting them, they argue, would not only deprive them of their homes and livelihoods but also disrupt the social harmony of the region.

The petition also claims that the authorities marked the petitioners’ homes for demolition with red stickers without issuing any prior notice, in clear violation of the law. Specifically, they cite Section 165(3) of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, which requires that an eviction notice be given, allowing one month for occupants to vacate before any demolition occurs.

The petition argues that the demolition violates the principles of natural justice, especially the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which ensures the right to a fair hearing. The petitioners contend they were not given any opportunity to defend themselves, and the absence of notice deprived them of their homes and livelihoods, violating their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21. The petition was filed through Advocate Adeel Ahmed.

Other incidents of demolitions despite the Supreme Court’s stay:

On September 19, 2024, in Laksar, Uttarakhand, local authorities demolished a mosque following a complaint from the right-wing group Hindu Jagran Manch. The demolition was carried out by officials from the Tehsildar’s office, Nagar Palika, and the police, despite protests from the mosque’s builders. Laksar Tehsildar Pratap Singh Chauhan explained that the mosque was illegally constructed on vacant public land. Hindu Jagran Manch had previously protested the construction and filed a complaint with the sub-district magistrate. As per reports, Chauhan added that authorities had instructed the builders to cease construction, but they continued regardless. A video circulating in the media showed a Muslim man lamenting that officials refused to consider their documentation.

Hindutva groups in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh have recently launched campaigns against mosques, triggering protests and demands for demolitions. In Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, an alleged mistake in an RTI response, which initially showed no land records for a mosque, sparked protests. As per reports, further investigation allegedly revealed that the mosque’s land is legally registered under the Sunni Waqf, and local authorities are working to resolve the issue.

A mosque in #Laksar, #Uttarakhand, was demolished by local authorities following a complaint from the right-wing group #HinduJagranManch. The demolition, carried out on Thursday by officials from the Tehsildar’s office, Nagar Palika, and police, faced opposition from the mosque’s… pic.twitter.com/1QftYPvSwh

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 20, 2024

Also on September 19, 2024, in Uttar Pradesh’s Shahjahanpur district, a historic religious site in the village of Sahora was targeted by alleged Hindutva mob. The group demolished a shrine and replaced it with a Shivling. The police have since registered an FIR against those involved, and a heavy police force has been deployed to manage tensions in the area.

In #UttarPradesh‘s #Shahjahanpur, a historic religious site in the village of #Sahora was targeted by a #Hindutva mob on Wednesday. The group demolished an existing shrine and replaced it with a Shivling.

The police have registered an FIR against those who did this. Police force… pic.twitter.com/HnqguNVLOE

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 19, 2024

On September 21, 2024, a protest erupted in Dharavi, Maharashtra, when Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) staff attempted to demolish an allegedly illegal portion of the Subhania Mosque. The protest, which involved an estimated crowd of 5,000, escalated into a clash with BMC officials, resulting in property damage, including the breaking of a BMC vehicle’s glass. Notably, police responded by arresting three individuals accused of inciting the riot. The arrested individuals have been charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 132, which is non-bailable and relates to obstructing government employees. Police also suggested that the protest was fuelled by inflammatory social media posts circulated the night before. Local residents attempted to de-escalate the situation by urging protesters to clear the road for traffic. The BMC has since given the mosque committee eight days to address the alleged illegal construction.

On September 24, 2024, in Madhya Pradesh’s Neemuch district, authorities demolished the home of a 70-year-old widow, Barkat Bai. As per media reports, the land had been granted to her under the Mukhyamantri Ashray Yojana in 2008. According to her family, the demolition occurred while Barkat Bai was away seeking treatment for an illness. Her son-in-law, Mohammad Rais, questioned how land legally provided by the government could be deemed illegal. Locals submitted a written complaint to the district magistrate, alleging that municipal officials had been pressuring her to leave the land for some time. They also claimed that her approved housing funds had been stalled, preventing her from building a proper home. Reportedly, in an effort to force her out, officials had dug a drainage trench outside her house, restricting her movement., while the authorities have stated that the land was cleared for the construction of a fire office.

Going Against Sept 17 order of #SupremeCourtOfIndia to Pauses ‘Bulldozer Actions’, #MPGovt razed the home of 70 year old widow, Barkat Bai on Sept 24 declaring it as an “encroachment.”

In #MadhyaPradesh‘s #Neemuch, a patch of land which was given to Barkat Bai under Mukhyamantri… pic.twitter.com/4hE98ybNXD

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 25, 2024

In the early hours of September 28, 2024, authorities in Gujarat’s Gir Somnath district demolished a centuries-old dargah, mosque, and graveyard as part of an ongoing anti-encroachment drive. The demolished structures included the tomb of Haji Mangroli Shah, located near Hazrat Maai Puri Masjid. Despite a Supreme Court order halting demolitions without prior approval, the authorities allegedly proceeded with the demolitions, claiming the drive was aimed at removing illegal constructions near the Somnath Temple to facilitate the Somnath Development Project. Around 150 protestors, including members of the dargah committee, were detained by police. According to local authorities, the drive cleared approximately 15 hectares of government land valued at Rs 60 crore.

This is from #GirSomnath, #Gujarat.

On September 28, In apparent defiance of the #SupremeCourt’s demolition order, authorities razed a 500-year-old graveyard, mosque, and dargah.

Massive protests were held against the demolitions, which are supposedly meant to pave way for… pic.twitter.com/Iyr1ZvWbX6

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 29, 2024

On the same day, in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, a mob demolished the wall of an under-construction mosque while objecting to its construction. The mosque, being built on land donated by a Muslim man as part of a resolution between two brothers, was attacked while Muslim community members were away for work. It is being alleged that religious books were torn, and a house was attacked, with a woman being thrashed by the mob. The mosque was planned because there was no mosque in the village of Kela Dandi.

In #UttarPradesh‘s #Bareilly, wall of under-construction mosque was demolished by mob while raising objection to the construction of the mosque.

The mosque was attacked and religious books were torn when #Muslims were out for work.

Mob also barged into a house, thrashed a… pic.twitter.com/RMt6OsaPr1

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 29, 2024

Persistent violations: illegal demolitions continue despite Supreme Court orders

The issue of illegal demolitions in India has become a significant and persistent concern, despite the Supreme Court’s recent orders halting such actions without prior approval. As seen in multiple states, local authorities continue to bypass the law by labelling homes, religious structures, and communities as “illegal encroachments,” thereby justifying demolition drives. These actions often occur without due process, violating citizens’ fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood as guaranteed by the Constitution. The widespread disregard for legal procedures, despite the Supreme Court’s stay, underscores a deeper systemic issue where executive powers are misused to marginalise vulnerable communities under the guise of legality. This ongoing trend not only undermines the rule of law but also threatens the social fabric of the affected areas, with entire communities facing displacement, communal tensions, and loss of homes.

Related:

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

“Bulldozer barbarism”: Demolition drive in Surat after stones thrown at Ganesh pandal

As Khyber Pass demolitions get preponed to Sept 15, residents decry decision

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

The post Demolitions: SC orders status quo on Sonapur demolitions, issues notice to Assam Government Uttarakhand, UP, Gujarat also ignore Sept 17 order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is to be highlighted that the bench, while passing this direction, has also clarified that this order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.

The direction of the Court made a blanket ban over the bulldozer demolition across the country, till October 1, as the matter is listed for next hearing. Previously, the Court expressed that guidelines on ‘Pan-India Basis’ would be laid down, so that the concerns regarding demolition of properties of accused persons are taken care of. The Court also sought all parties’ suggestions to frame appropriate guidelines on its September 2 order.

Background

The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of pleas filed against the ‘bulldozer actions’ happening across the country in various states, especially in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. The pleas are expressing their primary concern with the allegedly arbitrary bulldozing of houses and properties of the accused as a punitive punishment.

On April 20, 2022, the Islamic Cleric Body, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind was filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court relating to demolition drive by North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) in April, 2022 in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area and alleged that the NDMC had provided insufficient notice to those whose properties were razed.

As on April 16, 2022 a Shobha Yatra to celebrate Hanuman Jayanti was organised in Jahangirpuri. Rioting took place after stones were allegedly pelted at the event. Over 20 people were arrested in connection with the violence, with five accused booked under the National Security Act, 1980. On April 19, the Chief of Delhi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) wing wrote to the NDMC pointing to the rioters’ illegally constructed homes and establishments. The next day, the NDMC, led by Mayor and BJP politician Raja Iqbal Singh, launched a drive to raze encroachments in the area, demolishing several structures in Jahangirpuri, many of which were owned by Muslims.

On April 20, 2022, the bench consisting of Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli stayed the Jahangirpuri demolition drive and directed authorities to maintain status quo.

On April 21, 2022, CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat and individuals whose properties had been razed, filed a petition in the SC challenging the NDMC’s continued demolition of properties in violation of the Court’s Order dated April 20, 2022.

On April 21, 2022, taking cognizance of the petition in Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022], a bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai stayed the bulldozer actions and demolition drive in Jahangirpuri and directed authorities to not take any further action until further order of the court.

The demolition drive was stayed by the Supreme Court but the petitioners raised their concern before the bench against the alleged illegal ‘bulldozer’ action taken by the various states across the country as a form of punitive punishment against the accused person’s properties. 

Details of the present pleas before the bench:

The Supreme Court was hearing two urgent applications along with pleas filed by Jamiat and CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat, challenging recent demolition actions by authorities in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. These pleas have been moved by the victims, Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh, whose homes were targeted. Senior Advocate CU Singh mentioned one of the applications earlier in the day, requesting it be heard alongside the ongoing Brinda Karat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors, [W.P. (C) 294 of 2022] which challenges the 2022 demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri.

One of the applications was filed by the Rashid Khan, a 60-years old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur. In Udaipur the District Administration demolished the house of Rashid as one of his tenant’s boy, allegedly stabbed his classmate. An order was issued by the district forest authority and Municipal Corporation on Friday, August 16, 2024 and gave the family time till Tuesday i.e. August 20 to vacate their home, but the authorities demolished the house a little later on August 17.

The other plea was filed by Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh who has also alleged that his house and shop were unlawfully bulldozed by the state administration. Both Khan and Hussain’s applications were filed in the context of a case previously submitted by Jamiat Ulama I Hind, which objected to the demolition of Muslim homes in Haryana’s Nuh following communal violence between Hindus and Muslims.

A detailed report can be read here

Can’t demolish house just because somebody is accused: SC

Notably, On September 2, 2024, the Division bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan strongly criticized the practice of  ‘bulldozer actions’ against the properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. The bench proposed the intention to lay down pan-India guideline with regards to the demolitions.

Justice Gavai while taking note on the petitioner’s concern with raising ‘bulldozer action’ taken by the various state government against accused’s property, questioned that “How can a house be demolished just because he is accused? It can’t be demolished even if he’s convict.” he also clarified that the Court won’t protect unauthorized constructions, he remarked that some guidelines are necessary.

Justice Vishwanathan also emphasized on the need for specific guidelines in relation to the demolition actions. He observed that “why can’t some guidelines be laid down? It should be put across states. This needs to be streamlined.”  He further added that “a father may have recalcitrant son, but if the house is demolished on this ground, this is not the way to go about it”,

Justice Gavai in furtherance of the observation made by Justice Vishwanathan, added that even if a construction is unauthorized, the demolition can be carried out with due procedure, reported Live Law.

During the hearing on September 2, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the State’s position is clear from its affidavit which stated that merely because a person is alleged to be part of an offence, it can’t be ground for demolition. “No immovable property can be demolished because owner/occupant is involved in offense,” the SG read from the affidavit.

SG Mehta also addressed the bench stating that in the incidents of alleged illegal demolition cited in the petition filed against the UP Government, notices for violations were sent to the persons, and since they did not respond, the unauthorised constructions were demolished following the process in the municipal laws. He also opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted that the immovable properties can be demolished only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

According to a report in Live Law, the bench said remarked that ‘lets us try to resolve the issue on pan-India basis’ while adjourning the hearing for September 17, 2024. The bench also suggested that counsels for the parties should give their suggestions so that the Court can frame appropriate guidelines. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, who appeared for Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, submitted that several houses of persons were demolished in Delhi’ Jahangirpuri area, just after the riots in April, 2022 on the allegation that they had instigated riots. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh also submitted that in Udaipur where a person’s house was demolished because the tenant’s son was accused of a crime.

The order dated September 2, 2024 may be read here:

SC criticized glorification, grandstanding of bulldozer action

During the hearing on September 17, 2024, while staying the arbitrary ‘bulldozer justice’ system practiced by various state governments as retaliation to accused’s property and establishments, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan flagged the glorification, grandstanding and justification of the demolition action. The bench while expressing its displeasure with ‘Bulldozer Justice” and its glorification, questioned it stating, “Now, whether this should happen in our country, Whether the Election Commission can be noticed so that some kind of a thing can be laid down?”

The bench also sought assistance from SG Tushar Mehta on the issue of glorification and grandstanding on demolition.  The bench said that “you will assist us on how to stop this. If necessary, we will ask the Election Commission also.”

Outside noise is not influencing us, illegal demolition against the ethos of the Constitution: SC

During the hearing a counsel appearing for the petitioners said that even after the Supreme Court’s September 2 order, demolitions were carried out in the country.

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta while opposing the contention of the petitioner, submitted before the bench on September 17 that a ‘narrative’ was being built over the demolition of properties. He further said there was a petition before the apex court which alleged that because the person belonged to a particular religion, his property was demolished.

“Let them bring to your lordships’ notice one instance of demolition where the law is not complied (with),” SG Mehta added. He said that the affected parties have not approached the court because they know that they have received notices and their constructions were illegal. When SG Mehta argued about the narrative being built over the demolition action, the bench said, “Rest assured that outside noise is not influencing us.”

The bench said it will hear the matter on October 1, and till then no demolition shall be done without its leave.

When SG Mehra raised objections to the Court’s order while saying that the hands of authorities can’t be tied in this manner, Justice Gavai said that “heavens won’t fall” if the demolitions are stopped for two weeks.

Justice Gavai further stated that “Stay your hands. What will happen in 15 days?”

Justice Viswanathan, on the other hand while upholding the rule of law, stressed that, “Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of Constitution”. Importantly, the bench observed that the executive “can’t be a judge”, it said the directives to be passed by the court after hearing the parties would apply pan-India.

The bench said it had made it clear on September 2 that the court will not protect any unauthorised construction on a public road or public place.

SG Mehta said while highlighting one of the matters, a footpath was encroached upon, and notices were issued before it was cleared. “For footpath, we will say not even a notice is needed. Demolish forthwith even if there is a religious structure of any religion,” the bench said.

The bench clarified that the order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.

The order dated September 17, 2024 may be read here:

The matter has been listed for the next hearing on October 1, 2024

Related:

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

As Delhi votes this week for the Lok Sabha 2024 election, those affected by demolitions and evictions lack trust in the parties

The post Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The mega demolition drive started on Thursday morning with the help of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), 550 Police personnel in the presence of port chairman Sushil Kumar Singh along with Kutch East SP Sagar Bagmar.

A few hundred fishermen have been living there and carrying out their operations from these temporary homes, said local sources. They added, “The livelihood of these fishermen is at stake. They will lose their source of income.”

Authority said national threat and security reason for demolition

Briefing the press about the demolition drive, Superintendent of Police (Kutch East), Sagar Bagmar said, “There were illegal encroachments on the Kandla Port land, which could pose a threat for domestic as well as national security. Considering this threat, illegal encroachments were removed from the Port Trust land.”

1 of 3

Demolition Drive unjust and inhumane

State Congress leader Haji Juma Raima termed the demolition drive by the Port Authority as unjust and a violation of human rights. Stating that this operation has displaced thousands of people without making alternative arrangements was unjust. He also cited the Gujarat government’s earlier promise that if they have to be removed, alternative arrangement should be made for their accommodation.

There is no information available on whether any alternative accommodation has been provided to the homeless and affected families.

Related:

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court to hear urgent pleas against state-sanctioned bulldozer demolitions in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan

Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition

The post “Bulldozer Injustice”: Authorities demolished huts and makeshifts in Kutch’s Kandla port area appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A house demolition drive in UP went awry when allegedly one of the huts was set ablaze by the authorities resulting in the death of a mother and daughter, leaving their family distraught. A case of murder has been filed against the sub divisional magistrate, the station house officer and the bulldozer operator, reported NDTV.

In Madauli village in UP’s Kanpur Dehat, during an anti-encroachment drive, the police, district administration and revenue officials were present when this incident occurred and after the fire, they allegedly fled from the spot. Shivam Dixit, the son, who also recorded a video which has been uploaded on social media, claims that “They started the fire while people were still inside. We were just about able to escape. They broke our temple. Nobody did anything, not even the DM (District Magistrate). Everybody ran, nobody could save my mother.”

This from #KanpurDehat, #UttarPradesh.

Mother-Daughter set themselves on Fire in front of the Encroachment Removal Team, the team fled from the Spot.

Krishna Gopal Dixit’s wife Pramila & daughter Neha died on the spot in the incident & Krishna is in a semi-incomplete condition. pic.twitter.com/vyptPU3Kr3

— Hate Detector ? (@HateDetectors) February 13, 2023

The police allegedly created a false narrative that the mother and daughter set themselves ablaze because their house was being demolished. However, other villagers and the kin of the deceased, including the son alleged that their hut was set ablaze when the authorities set off the bulldozer on the hut with the mother daughter still within, and a fire erupted. Superintendent of Police (SP) BBGTS Murthy told the media, “From what we are getting to know, a woman and her daughter locked themselves inside the hut and set it on fire which has resulted in their death. We have reached the spot. All the concerned officials are also here. We will investigate and if there is any wrongdoing, we won’t spare the guilty”. As per the officers, they had gone to remove encroachments from a “gram samaj” or government land.

Krishna Gopal Dixit, the father, said that when their house was ablaze, all the officers left. He also said that one Gaurav Dixit is hands in gloves with the Lekhpal and the SO. He further said it is possible that some false cases have been filed against them as well. He said somehow, he was able to escape from the fire and that the SP drove them away instead of listening to their plea.

Bite of Shri Krishna Gopal Dixit…#UttarPradesh #KanpurDehat #Madauli #Maitha pic.twitter.com/LvX7oSL2eC

— Hate Detector ? (@HateDetectors) February 13, 2023

The villagers refused to move the bodies of the mother-daughter, so they decided to sit on a dharna. As the situation escalated, a contingent of UP-PAC (Provincial Armed Constabulary) was deployed on the spot and compelled the Additional Director General of Police (Kanpur zone) Alok Singh, along with Divisional Commissioner Raj Shekhar to visit the village, where they assured strict action in this matter.

In another video, posted by Samajwadi Party’s media cell, Shivam, appears to be speaking to a media person. While sobbing, he blamed SDM, Lekhpal as well as the DM, Neha Jain, for the incident. He said they are all in cahoots with each other and conspired against them. He also named a few others, including Neha Jain, Ashok, Anil, Brijesh, Nirmal, Manish who set their hut on fire. He said as the hut caught fire, all the officers fled from the spot. He said we tried saving them from the blazing hut but we were unable to do so.

@Uppolice @dgpup
मृतक का बेटा नाम लेकर प्रशासनिक अधिकारियों को दोषी ठहरा रहा है

आप लोग हत्या ,हत्या की साजिश ,वसूली ,धमकाने जैसी संगीन धाराओं में दोषी इन सभी अधिकारियों पर मुकदमा करके कब जेल भेजेंगे ?

जबसे नए कमिश्नर आए हैं नोएडा जैसी वसूली और जमीन के धंधों में जुटे हैं ? pic.twitter.com/xqSkmZZWj9

— SamajwadiPartyMediaCell (@MediaCellSP) February 13, 2023

Related:

Jammu and Kashmir on Edge as Fear of ‘Eviction’ Haunts Residents

Disturbing images emerge from Srinagar as people protest the ongoing demolition drive

‘Forcibly Removed by Rampur Admin to Make Way for Hindu Vendors,’ Say Muslim Street Sellers

The post UP: Demolition drive goes awry, mother daughter burnt alive appeared first on SabrangIndia.