Demolitions | SabrangIndia News Related to Human Rights Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:38:41 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Demolitions | SabrangIndia 32 32 Razed to the ground, taken to Court: The legal and social fallout of India’s demolition drives https://sabrangindia.in/razed-to-the-ground-taken-to-court-the-legal-and-social-fallout-of-indias-demolition-drives/ Thu, 19 Jun 2025 05:38:41 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42320 Waves of demolitions in Delhi, Maharashtra, Telangana and beyond have left hundreds homeless, while High Courts and the Supreme Court weigh procedural lapses, land rights, and the limits of executive force in cases of demolitions

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

]]> Over the past several weeks, cities across India have witnessed a sharp intensification of demolition drives—targeting informal settlements, religious structures, shopping complexes, and even long-established neighbourhoods. Often justified by civic authorities as anti-encroachment or flood mitigation measures, many of these operations have left thousands displaced, raising urgent questions about due process, housing rights, and accountability. At the same time, the judiciary has been drawn deeply into this unfolding crisis. While some courts have upheld demolition orders citing rampant illegality, others have paused or scrutinised state action for bypassing legal safeguards, relying on vague notices, or overlooking rehabilitation obligations. This report brings together a series of such recent demolition actions—from Delhi, Greater Noida, and Jamnagar to Thane and Peddapalli—and tracks how courts from the High Courts to the Supreme Court are adjudicating the multiple, layered questions of land, law, and justice that these demolitions now represent.

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.

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

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

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.”

  1. 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.

  1. 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?”

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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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).

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

]]> Gujarat HC orders status quo on Dahod Nagina Masjid demolitions https://sabrangindia.in/gujarat-hc-orders-status-quo-dahod-nagina-masjid-demolitions/ Fri, 26 May 2023 05:20:37 +0000 https://sabrangindia.com/?p=26377 The Gujarat High Court directed the Dahod municipality to follow ‘due process of law’ on Nagina Masjid plot and give the petitioners the opportunity of a hearing.

The post Gujarat HC orders status quo on Dahod Nagina Masjid demolitions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday, May 23 ordered authorities in Dahod to maintain the status quo on the land parcel where a century old Nagina Masjid stood. In the early hours of May 20 the administration had razed parts of the structure to the ground. The HC directed the municipality to follow “due process of law” reported The Indian Express..

In a petition moved by the Nagina Masjid Trust before Gujarat High Court the week before last, the Trust had pointed out that while notices under the Gujarat Municipalities Act were issued to nearby shops over alleged encroachment and these were demolished on May 15, the authorities also started demolishing other shops that were under the ownership of the petitioner Trust without due process and issuance of any notice.

The petitioners also stated that no official notice was issued to the Trust for the mosque demolition. They were only informally told by the authorities that the “petitioner and others may remove all the religious books, Quran and other revered articles from the Masjid till Friday (May 19) as the Masjid will be demolished after evening prayers”.

The Trust has submitted before the court that the mosque had been standing at the spot since 1926 in a part of the Trust’s land, which was registered in 1953. Some of the shops on other parts of the land – which have now been demolished – were given on rent by the Trust and Waqf over the years, the court was also told.

The Trust further also submitted proof that the mosque was “protected and could not be demolished, more particularly in view of provisions under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991”, and given that the masjid is a Waqf property, no action could have been undertaken without the approval of the Waqf Board.

The court of Justice S V Pinto on Tuesday also issued notice to the authorities and sought that the Dahod authorities respond to the contentions raised in the petition by June 8, until when the authorities have been directed to maintain the status quo.

In another petition moved by Anjumane Mohammadi Jamat through its administrator and secretary Asgarali Ahmedali Rayli, it was contended by the petitioner that they apprehend demolition of another Mosque (masjid) although they have formally not been served with a notice by the Dahod authorities as is required under the Gujarat Municipalities Act. On Tuesday, Justice Pinto, after hearing both sides, disposed of the petition with an instruction to the government counsel that the petitioner be provided with an opportunity of a hearing before taking any coercive steps.

Justice Pinto directed the Dahod municipality to follow “due process of law and give an opportunity of hearing before taking any coercive actions and the petitioners must be allowed to put forward their case. The nagarpalika (municipality) shall give an opportunity of hearing to petitioners and give a reasoned order.”

May 20-21, 2023

 A mosque, believed to be around a century old, was among eight places of worship razed Saturday by the Dahod Smart City administration in Gujarat. Amid huge police deployment, the massive demolition drive began at the Nagina Mosque around 4.30 a.m.

The mosque was razed under a Smart City road widening project after the Masjid Trust failed to get relief from the Gujarat High Court or produce land record documents on Friday, officials said. Hours after the mosque demolition, four temples and three other dargahs were also razed.

As a part of two-tier security arrangements, around 450 police personnel were deployed for the 4.30 am demolition. The mosque was “demolished in a peaceful and amicable” manner, officials added.

“The Trust had sought time on its own until Friday to produce land records. The administration conceded to the request. But on Friday, the records it brought were not reliable,” Dahod Superintendent of Police Balram Meena, who is part of the district-level panel for the implementation of the Smart City Project, told the IE.

“On Friday evening, a meeting was held between the mosque members with the sub-divisional magistrate, Prant Officer, and chief officer of the municipality, among others, where the Trust members agreed to evacuate the premises on being given the option to demolish the structure on their own. We did not have to enter the premises as they had already evacuated the structure. The police deployment will remain but we do not anticipate any trouble,” Meena added.

Related:

Aftermath of Demolition Drive in Tughlakabad: Hunger and Homelessness Rife

Demolition of 3 Churches in BJP-Ruled Manipur for ‘Illegal Construction’ causes social media uproar

The post Gujarat HC orders status quo on Dahod Nagina Masjid demolitions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Calcutta High Court sets an example, orders Rs. 80,000 compensation for illegal demolition https://sabrangindia.in/calcutta-high-court-sets-example-orders-rs-80000-compensation-illegal-demolition/ Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:18:19 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2023/04/21/calcutta-high-court-sets-example-orders-rs-80000-compensation-illegal-demolition/ The court expressed dismay that the authorities did not follow due process of law and in an unauthorised manner, demolished a property without issuing any notice

The post Calcutta High Court sets an example, orders Rs. 80,000 compensation for illegal demolition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Calcutta High Court sets an example, orders Rs. 80,000 compensation for illegal demolition

The Calcutta High Court, in a writ petition filed by a person whose property was razed by the administration, ordered that the authorities pay a compensation of Rs. 80,000 to the petitioner.  The bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya left it up to the respondents to decide who will bear the costs to pay the compensation. One of the respondents was SDO of Jangipuri, Murshidabad.

The court was deeply perturbed by the facts of the case and deemed that the respondents acted maliciously.

The writ petition was filed on April 18 and notice was served upon the respondents. The matter was mentioned on April 19 and the respondents were informed of the same, yet the structure was demolished on the same day as the order, on March 29. The order mentioned that the plot in question was a land under dispute for being a road. However, the court pointed out that the order was passed under West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, which excludes “road” from the definition of “public land”.

The court read down the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, while assuming that the authorities had powers under this Act to act against the disputed land. The court found that section 3 and 4 of the Act  were not complied with by the SDM, wherein he/she is required to give a show cause notice to the occupant and take action only after considering the reply to the show cause notice.

The impugned order in the present case reflects that the SDM jumped Sections 3 and 4 of the 1962 Act and proceeded straightaway to direct removal of the encroachment under Section 5(1) of the Act.

The court said that even if the March 29 order was to be considered as a notice, the documents placed before the Court do not indicate that the procedure to be followed under Sections 4 and 5 were complied with. The court noted that the documents do not mention the word “demolition” anywhere.

The court also took note of a letter from BDO, Murshidabad seeking urgent steps for completion of a Government project on the concerned land. The letter was also sent to the M.P., Jangipur and the M.L.A., Suti for sending a representative on the stipulated date and time.

“The action of the State authorities in failing to comply with the statutory mandate of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, − assuming that the Act is applicable in the present case− and disregarding the filing of the writ petition before this Court amounts to “Malice in Law”.”

The court held that malice in law “involves an intention on the part of the authorities to do a wrongful act with full knowledge not only of the commission of the act but also of the consequences which would necessarily follow as a result of the act”.

The court also deprecated the practice of calling upon the political functionaries. The court said, “Calling upon political functionaries to lend support to an act which is ex facie illegal aggravates the malice and is evidence of the premeditated nature of the act thereof. The State respondents have disregarded a pending judicial proceeding and have sought to frustrate the same.”

The court thus directed the respondents to pay Rs. 80,000 as compensation for the loss caused to the petitioners.

The order may be read here:

In a similar unauthorised and unlawful fashion, a section of a 250-year-old mosque which also had a madrassa that housed more than 100 orphans was razed to the ground in Delhi’s Bengali Market. When Advocate Mehmood Pracha reached the site and asked for demolition orders, the authorities and the police refused to provide the same. As per the mosque management, they were not served any notice of demolition. There is clearly no accountability from the authorities who come and demolish structures without giving notice to the occupants/residents. Many such incidents have been recorded this year and this direction of the Calcutta High Court to make good the loss to the petitioner by way of monetary compensation can become a major deterrent for such errant authorities. While in some cases, courts stressed upon the need for rehabilitation of those who are evicted and rendered homeless, in cases where due process is not followed, penalising the authority can certainly reduce the number of such incidents.

The most unfortunate of these recent incidents was the one from Kanpur Dehat where a mother and daughter were burnt alive as they were inside their hutment when the bulldozer came for them. While the police at first claimed that they set themselves on fire, eventually a case of murder was registered against the SDM and others.

In Assam’s Sonitpur, 2,500 Bengali Muslim families were rendered homeless as a demolition drive was conducted, displacing these families for their lands where they were cultivators.

In UP’s Ghaziabad, in Sahibabad people’s homes were being demolished, allegedly without any notice. In a video posted on social media, a woman can be seen pleading to the police and other people present, to not go ahead but she was being dragged.

 

Related:

250-year-old mosque in Delhi partially demolished in “anti encroachment drive”

Evictions are at an all-time high as bulldozers gain momentum in the country

UP: Demolition drive goes awry, mother daughter burnt alive

MP: In CM’s Home District, Bulldozers Reduce 20 Homes Built Under PMAY to Rubble

The post Calcutta High Court sets an example, orders Rs. 80,000 compensation for illegal demolition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> UP: Demolition drive goes awry, mother daughter burnt alive https://sabrangindia.in/demolition-drive-goes-awry-mother-daughter-burnt-alive/ Tue, 14 Feb 2023 06:28:04 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2023/02/14/demolition-drive-goes-awry-mother-daughter-burnt-alive/ While officers initially claimed that they set themselves on fire, a case of murder has now been filed against the SDM and two others

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

]]> WomenImage: Aaj Tak

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.”

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

]]> Cannot demolish construction by giving 24 hours’ notice: MP high Court https://sabrangindia.in/cannot-demolish-construction-giving-24-hours-notice-mp-high-court/ Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:27:20 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2023/01/02/cannot-demolish-construction-giving-24-hours-notice-mp-high-court/ The petitioners alleged that since they have filed a petition against the sitting MLA, this action was being taken against them

The post Cannot demolish construction by giving 24 hours’ notice: MP high Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Demolition
Representation Image

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore) has held in a case that the petitioners should have been given more than 24 hours notice before demolition considering they have occupied the land for 10 years. Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh directed the Tehsildar to follow due process of law and asked them to supply the proper documents to the petitioners before deciding on the demolition.

The Tehsildar, Bhanpura of Mandsaur district had issued a show cause notice to the petitioners to demolish the construction allegedly made on government land, in Nimthur village. As per the petitioners, the notice was issued because they have filed an Election Petition against a sitting MLA of the ruling party. While the notice was served on December 28, 2022 at around 6.45 pm, he was directed to file reply on December 29, 2022 itself failing which the construction would be demolished. The petitioners contended that the contents of the notice apparently shows that the same has been given with political reasons and proper opportunity has not been given to the petitioners to file their reply and therefore sought quashing of the notice.

The court noted that since the petitioners have been in possession of the said land since 10 years it appears appropriate to give them some reasonable time to file response. The court restrained the State from taking any action against them.

The court also directed the respondents to provide relevant papers with regard to demarcation of the land in question to the petitioners within 3 days after which the petitioners will file response within 10 days. Thereafter, the Tehlsidar will pass appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the reply.

It is further directed that respondents will not take any coercive action against the petitioners after passing of the said order for 7 days and provide reasonable time to the petitioners to approach the competent authority.

This is a significant judgement considering the state of affairs in many BJP ruled states where the governments are using demolition as a tool to reprimand accused; which has been deemed to be retaliatory rather than a lawful means of punishment. In many cases, the aggrieved persons have claimed that either no notice has been issued or only 24 hours notice has been issued asking the occupants to vacate their homes which they have residents of for years together. As this has been held to be unreasonable by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it is required to be followed by that State government and taken as an example by other governments as well.

A detailed list of demolition actions by state governments may be read here.

The complete order may be read here:

 

Related:

2022: A year of the ‘Bulldozer injustice’

Bulldozer injustice: this will only stop when a police officer is sent to jail, says Patna HC

“Bulldozer Injustice”: Time for courts to actively step in

The post Cannot demolish construction by giving 24 hours’ notice: MP high Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Supreme Court refuses to pass Omnibus Orders against demolitions across states https://sabrangindia.in/supreme-court-refuses-pass-omnibus-orders-against-demolitions-across-states/ Thu, 14 Jul 2022 08:11:48 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2022/07/14/supreme-court-refuses-pass-omnibus-orders-against-demolitions-across-states/ The court heard a petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind against the demolition exercises; matter now adjourned to August 10

The post Supreme Court refuses to pass Omnibus Orders against demolitions across states appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>

Demolition
 

On July 13, 2022, the Supreme Court heard the PILs filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUIH) alleging that authorities in states like Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Madhya Pradesh (MP) are resorting to “bulldozer” action to demolish the houses of persons accused in cases like riots, reported LiveLaw.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha reportedly observed, “Rule of law has to be followed, no dispute. But can we pass an omnibus order? If under the Municipal law the construction is unauthorized, can an omnibus order be passed to restrain authorities?”

The Supreme Court had reportedly issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government in connection to the matter who filed a reply stating that the demolition drives were routine exercises to remove encroachment. The Court has now asked the State of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat to file their responses.

According to Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the petitioners, the government is taking “selective action” against those accused in riots. He reportedly submitted, “Demolition of houses merely because somebody is accused in a crime is not acceptable in our society. We are governed by rule of law…”. He further submitted that in Assam, the house of a person was reportedly demolished after he was accused in a crime. Senior Advocate CU Singh who was also appearing for the Petitioners alleged that despite the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court in Jahangirpuri, the same modus operandi was followed in many other cities, including UP, reported LiveLaw. He reportedly stated, “We have given numerous cases, where police officers announcing demolition and demolishing the houses of the accused.”

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Harish Salve contended that there is no “other community” as pointed out by the petitioner and “all communities are Indian communities”. They stressed that there is no connection between the demolitions and rioting, and that the anti-encroachment exercises started long before the riots. They said “unnecessary sensational hype” must not be created.

Raising questions regarding the locus standi of the Petitioner, the SG submitted that the individual affected parties have already approached the High Courts. He further reportedly added, “Replies have been filed by authorities that procedure was followed and notices were issued. Process started much before riots.”

Senior Counsel Harish Salve argued that the Court cannot pass an order that a house should not be demolished merely because the individual involved is an accused in a case. He contended that there are numerous instances where the Police authorities announced demolitions of the houses of the accused. He reportedly stated, “The problem is the police authorities are announcing that the houses of accused will be demolished. The SP of Kanpur, the SP of Saharanpur, they are announcing.”

However, Senior Advocate Dave contended that there is no material to show that other unauthorised houses were acted against. He reportedly added, “There is a pick and choose against other community… The entire Sainik Farm is illegal. Nobody has touched it in 50 years. Look at the illegal farm houses in Delhi. No action taken. Selective action is taken.”

The matter is now listed for hearing on August 10.

Brief Background

A petition had been originally filed by Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind against demolition drives in Jahangirpuri and other states, namely – Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. It then sought an urgent and comprehensive stay on demolitions as well as related directions to the state of Uttar Pradesh and its police force to refrain from illegal and malafide actions in demolishing homes of alleged accused in Kanpur, Saharanpur and Prayagraj (Allahabad).

The first plea, on June 12, relates to Kanpur demolitions in particular, sought a stay on any further demolition drives that the authorities may be planning to carry out in Kanpur district, which witnessed violence during the protests earlier this month. Kanpur was the first city in India to experience violence following the protests against (the now suspended) BJP spokesperson, Nupur Sharma.

On the afternoon of June 3, following Friday prayers, attempts to shut down shops had resulted in stone pelting and violence by the police. Following its now established high-handed and unlawful procedure, the authorities had proceeded to name, blame and then proceed to demolish the homes/properties of alleged accused behind the violence. The Jamiat said in its fresh plea that following the violence in Kanpur, “a number of persons in authority have stated in the media that the properties of suspects/ accused would be confiscated and demolished.”

“Even the Chief Minister of the state has said in the media that the houses of accused persons would be razed using bulldozers. The Additional Director General (Law and Order), Mr. Prashant Kumar, and Commissioner of Police of Kanpur, Mr. Vijay Singh Meena, too, has reiterated that the properties of the accused would be seized and demolished,” the application states.

The plea urged the top court to direct the UP government to ensure that “no precipitative action be taken in Kanpur District against the residential or commercial property of any accused in any criminal proceedings as an extra-legal punitive measure.” An article in The Hindustan Times had reported these statements of the top echelons of the police. Other media reports had revealed that of the three FIRs registered by the Kanpur police, in which 1,000 unnamed accused were listed, 55 named accused were all Muslim suggesting a partisan gaze.

The second intervention application, relates to the brazen demolition in Prayagraj (Allahabad) that was carried out in full public view on June 12, on the home of Parveen Fatima, mother of youth activist Afreen Fatima and wife of political activist Javed Mohammad. Claiming (without any investigation) that Javed Mohammad was one of the “masterminds” in the Prayagraj stone pelting that took place on June 10, the UP police – after serving a hurried post-dated one-day previous notice – had simply arrived on the spot in Kareli and brought down Parveen Fatima’s ancestral home on June 12. An intimidating presence of 2,000 plus police and riot police prevented any citizens from protesting this brazenly illegal act.

The second intervention application states that the Prayagraj administration cited violation of building norms and demolished the house. The IA also states that the police have handed over a preliminary list of 37 accused in the protests to the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) to check for irregularities in their properties — and take action, if needed, including demolition. All these persons face a potential threat of the same kind faced by the family of Afreen Fatima.

Explicit directions have been sought from the Supreme Court by the petitioner/intervenor to “ensure that any demolition exercise of any nature must be carried out strictly in accordance with applicable laws, and only after due notice and opportunity of hearing is given to each of the affected persons.” It also prayed for directions that “residential accommodation” or “any commercial property cannot be demolished as a punitive measure.”

Stating that such a “demolition exercise of any nature must be carried out strictly in accordance with applicable laws, and only after due notice and opportunity of hearing to each of the affected persons — as mandated by this Hon’ble Court”, the IA seeks judicial intervention on the high-handed activities of the executive.

The applications point out that even under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building 7 Operations) Act, 1958, demolition of a building shall not be undertaken unless the affected person is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Further, Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 also requires that the affected person be heard before proceeding with the demolition and be given at least 15 days’ notice. Moreover, as per the Act a person aggrieved with order of demolition is entitled to appeal against it to the Chairman within a period of 30 days of the order.

Therefore, it has been stated that the decision of proceeding with demolition of properties of accused persons is clearly illegal and doing so without providing a reason for the opportunity of hearing is also in violation of the municipal laws of the state, as well as violating principles of natural justice. Hence, such plans of the state of proceeding with vengeance are against our democratic values and resultantly, weaken the justice delivery system of the state. Based on the law, the interveners argue that it would be in the interest of justice that any demolition drive that the authorities are planning to carry out in Kanpur District, Prayagraj (Allahabad), Sahranpur or anywhere in Uttar Pradesh are stayed during the pendency of the instant writ petition.
 

Related:

Gujarat: Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind moves High Court against teaching of Bhagavad Gita in schools
Allegations of selective demolitions are false, Due process of law followed: UP gov’t to SC
Demolitions by the playbook, unprecedented even in pre-independence India: Senior Counsel to SC in Bulldozer Injustice case
SC to hear urgent petitions against UP demolitions today
Bulldozer Injustice: Homes of June 10 rioters to be demolished?
Anti-CAA Muslim activist Afreen Fatima’s family members illegally detained!
Spontaneous pan-India protests against Nupur Sharma
Friday protests: More people booked for unlawful assembly
Why is Jharkhand governor in favour of doxing alleged riot participants’ names?
Friday protests: At least 325 arrests in UP alone!
Jahangirpuri Demolition: SC to take “serious view of demolitions after Mayor was informed of order”
Bengaluru Police raid, tear down homes of Bengali Muslim migrants

 

The post Supreme Court refuses to pass Omnibus Orders against demolitions across states appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Allegations of selective demolitions are false, Due process of law followed: UP gov’t to SC https://sabrangindia.in/allegations-selective-demolitions-are-false-due-process-law-followed-govt-sc/ Wed, 22 Jun 2022 13:09:12 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2022/06/22/allegations-selective-demolitions-are-false-due-process-law-followed-govt-sc/ State urges SC to hold the petitioners to terms for the false and baseless allegations

The post Allegations of selective demolitions are false, Due process of law followed: UP gov’t to SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Supreme Court
Image Courtesy: economictimes.indiatimes.com

On June 21, 2022, the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted an affidavit before the Supreme Court justifying the demolitions undertaken in Kanpur and Prayagraj, claiming they were legal and compliant with provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

The said affidavit was filed in response to the two Intervention Applications (IAs) filed by Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind on June 13, in connection with the demolitions of homes of alleged rioters in Uttar Pradesh.

The State submitted that the Petitioner cherry-picked two demolition actions of illegal constructions in the properties of one Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad and one Mr. Riyaz Ahmed that took place in Kanpur in an attempt to falsely link the same to the rioting, and that in both cases, certain portions of the two illegal/non-compliant structures in question took place; that both buildings were under construction and not in conformity with the permission granted and that most importantly, proceedings under the Urban Planning Act against the two buildings had been initiated by the Kanpur Development Authority long before the incidents of rioting that took place in June 2022.

With respect to the Prayagraj demolition, the State submitted that the proceedings under the 1973 Act and Rules by the Prayagraj Development Authority against Javed Mohammed (husband of Parveen Fatima) had been initiated much prior to the incidents of rioting for illegal construction and unauthorised use of land as an office.According to the State, the illegal construction had been demolished only after due service and providing adequate opportunity under Section 27 of the Act.

It is the case of the State, that the Javed Mohammed and his family was served with a demolition order/notice dated May 25, 2022,and only because the notice failed to comply with the said order and remove the unauthorized construction himself, the noticee was served with a final notice dated June 10, 2022, directing them to vacate the premises by 11:00 A.M on June 12, 2022, so that the demolition of the building could be carried out. It submitted that the notice was even attempted to be hand delivered but the family members refuse to take the notice and therefore, the notice was served in accordance with Section 43(1)(d)(ii) of the Act by pasting it on the wall of the building.

These facts have been expressly denied by Parveen Fatima, the actual sole owner of the house, in a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court on June 20. She as first petitioner, and her daughter Sumaiyya, as second petitioner, have called out the government, denied the May 10, 2022 notice and called these “manufactured documents.”

Two days ago, on June 20, a full eight days after the demolition, Parveen Fatima, wife of Javed Mohammed, and their daughter Sumaiyya Fatima approached the court for full and fair restitution in a detailed writ petition. Afreen Fatima, former student activist is the elder daughter of the first petitioner. It was the petitioner’s case that JK Ashiana, the decades old family home of Parveen Fatima in Kareli, Allahabad, was passed on to her by her father through a legal deed in 1996.

The petition alleges that Parveen Fatima and her entire family have been subject to hostile discrimination and indignity, deprived of their valuable legal and constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21 and 300. Post-facto, the demolition is even being justified on the basis of manufactured documents (notices) now being cited by the government and authorities.

The illegal demolition was resorted to after the husband of the petitioner was arrested and thereafter, both the women Petitioners were forcibly taken from house to Mahila Thana. These are violations of set guidelines by the Supreme Court of India.

The petition states that, in order to execute this plan of illegal demolition, on the night of June 11, 2022, a pre-dated notice dated June 10, 2022, was pasted on the front wall of the house of Parveen Fatima by the Prayagraj Development Authority through its Joint Secretary/Zonal Officer informing that the house should be vacated by 11 A.M of the next day, i.e June 12, 2022 and that the house shall be demolished. Falsely, the June 10, 2022 notice mentions that a month earlier, a notice had been served on the family which the petitioners, on oath state that they have never received.

Ironically, the gross illegality if apparent in the fact that the so-called notice was served on Mohammad Javed who is not even the legal owner of the home. All bills, land, electricity and water have been duly and promptly paid and there are records of the same. The petitioners state clearly that no notices of May 25, 2022 and June 10, 2022 were ever served on the owner of the house, Parveen Fatima. These notices were not served on Javed Mohammad or any other member of his family either. The petitioners have clearly stated that these are manufactured documents. The only time that the notice was seen was the one dated June 10, 2022, posted on the wall of house in the night of June 11, 2022, was addressed to Javed Mohammad, who is neither the owner of the house nor has any share in the property.

Parveen Fatima is sole owner of the property. The Petitioners had no occasion to reply to this allegation as they did not receive any notices, as mentioned above. Like all others in the locality, who are similarly situated, the Petitioner No. 1 has been regularly paying all these years the house tax, water tax and electricity bill of the house and at no juncture, any objection was raised by the departments. More details on the said petition maybe readhere.

While these generalities in the state of UP’s affidavit datedJune 21, 2022

In its reply, the State alleged that the petitioner has attempted to give malafidecolour to the lawful action taken by the local development authorities as per procedure established by law by cherry-picking one sided media reporting of a few incidents and extrapolating sweeping allegations from the same against the State.

It further submitted that the demolitions referred to in the IAs had been carried out by the Local Development Authorities, which are statutory autonomous bodies, independent of the State administration, as per law as part of their routine effort against unauthorised/illegal constructions and encroachments, in accordance with the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1972.

Moreover, the State alleged that the Petitioners are seeking an omnibus relief and there is no occasion to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The State is of the opinion that it is the affected parties who are to seek relief and that too before the High Court.

Also, the State further argued that it has taken strong exception to the attempt by the Petitioner to name the highest constitutional functionaries of the State and falsely colour the local development authority’s lawful actions strictly complying with the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, as “extra legal punitive measures” against accused persons, targeting any particular religious community.

Finally, the Government urged the Supreme Court to hold the petitioners to terms for the false allegations that are made without any basis.

On June 13, the vacation bench of Justices AS Bopanna and VikramNath ordered that no out of turn demolitions are to take place pending the court proceedings. While the Court did not order a complete stay on the demolitions, the court prohibited the Uttar Pradesh government from carrying out demolition activities without following the due process of law. The court reportedly stated, “Action will only be in accordance with law.”

“We also keep seeing, we are also part of society. We also see what’s happening. Sometimes we have also formed some impressions. In someone’s case of grievance, if this court doesn’t come to rescue, it’s not proper. We have a duty. We should ensure safety in the meantime. It should look fair,” said Justice Bopanna.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that the petitioner JamiatUlama-I-Hind is not the affected party to approach the court.  He reportedly stated, “Someone has to come and say on the affidavit that the law is not followed. It’s an omnibus petition by an omnibus organisation seeking omnibus relief.”

However, Justice Bopanna remarked, “We have to be conscious of the fact that those people whose houses are demolished may not be able to approach the Court.”

Latest Intervention Applications

JUIH was the original petitioner in the matter pertaining to the demolitions carried out in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area. It has now sought an urgent and comprehensive stay on demolitions as well as related directions to the state of Uttar Pradesh and its police force to refrain from illegal and malafide actions in demolishing homes of alleged accused in Kanpur, Saharanpur and Prayagraj (Allahabad).

The first plea, filed afresh now, on June 12, relates to Kanpur demolitions in particular, has sought a stay on any further demolition drives that the authorities may be planning to carry out in Kanpur district, which witnessed violence during the protests earlier this month. Kanpur was the first city in India to experience violence following the protests against (the now suspended) BJP spokesperson, Nupur Sharma.

On the afternoon of June 3, following Friday prayers, attempts to shut down shops had resulted in stone pelting and violence by the police. Following its now established high-handed and unlawful procedure, the authorities had proceeded to name, blame and then proceed to demolish the homes/properties of alleged accused behind the violence. The Jamiat said in its fresh plea that following the violence in Kanpur, “a number of persons in authority have stated in the media that the properties of suspects/ accused would be confiscated and demolished.”

“Even the Chief Minister of the state has said in the media that the houses of accused persons would be razed using bulldozers. The Additional Director General (Law and Order), Mr. Prashant Kumar, and Commissioner of Police of Kanpur, Mr. Vijay Singh Meena, too, has reiterated that the properties of the accused would be seized and demolished,” the application states.

The plea urged the top court to direct the UP government to ensure that “no precipitative action be taken in Kanpur District against the residential or commercial property of any accused in any criminal proceedings as an extra-legal punitive measure.” An article in The Hindustan Times had reported these statements of the top echelons of the police. Other media reports had revealed that of the three FIRs registered by the Kanpur police, in which 1,000 unnamed accused were listed, 55 named accused were all Muslim suggesting a partisan gaze.

The second intervention application, relates to the brazen demolition in Prayagraj (Allahabad) that was carried out in full public view on June 12, on the home of Parveen Fatima, mother of youth activist Afreen Fatima and wife of political activist Javed Mohammad. Claiming (without any investigation) that Javed Mohammad was one of the “masterminds” in the Prayagraj stone pelting that took place last Friday, the UP police – after serving a hurried post-dated one-day previous notice – had simply arrived on the spot in Kareli and brought down Parveen Fatima’s ancestral home last Sunday. An intimidating presence of 2,000 plus police and riot police prevented any citizens from protesting this brazenly illegal act.

The second intervention application states that the Prayagraj administration cited violation of building norms and demolished the house. The IA also states that the police have handed over a preliminary list of 37 accused in the protests to the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) to check for irregularities in their properties — and take action, if needed, including demolition. All these persons face a potential threat of the same kind faced by the family of Afreen Fatima.

Explicit directions have been sought from the Supreme Court by the petitioner/intervener to “ensure that any demolition exercise of any nature must be carried out strictly in accordance with applicable laws, and only after due notice and opportunity of hearing is given to each of the affected persons.” It also prayed for directions that “residential accommodation” or “any commercial property cannot be demolished as a punitive measure.”

Stating that such a “demolition exercise of any nature must be carried out strictly in accordance with applicable laws, and only after due notice and opportunity of hearing to each of the affected persons — as mandated by this Hon’ble Court”, the IA seeks judicial intervention on the high-handed activities of the executive.

The applications point out that even under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building 7 Operations) Act, 1958, demolition of a building shall not be undertaken unless the affected person is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Further, Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 also requires that the affected person be heard before proceeding with the demolition and be given at least 15 days’ notice. Moreover, as per the Act a person aggrieved with order of demolition is entitled to appeal against it to the Chairman within a period of 30 days of the order.

Therefore, it has been stated that the decision of proceeding with demolition of properties of accused persons is clearly illegal and doing so without providing a reason for the opportunity of hearing is also in violation of the municipal laws of the state, as well as violating principles of natural justice. Hence, such plans of the state of proceeding with vengeance are against our democratic values and resultantly, weaken the justice delivery system of the state. Based on the law, the interveners argue that it would be in the interest of justice that any demolition drive that the authorities are planning to carry out in Kanpur District, Prayagraj (Allahabad), Sahranpur or anywhere in Uttar Pradesh are stayed during the pendency of the instant writ petition.

Related:

Demolitions by the playbook, unprecedented even in pre-independence India: Senior Counsel to SC in Bulldozer Injustice case
SC to hear urgent petitions against UP demolitions today
Bulldozer Injustice: Homes of June 10 rioters to be demolished?
Anti-CAA Muslim activist Afreen Fatima’s family members illegally detained!
Spontaneous pan-India protests against Nupur Sharma
Friday protests: More people booked for unlawful assembly
Why is Jharkhand governor in favour of doxing alleged riot participants’ names?
Friday protests: At least 325 arrests in UP alone!
Jahangirpuri Demolition: SC to take “serious view of demolitions after Mayor was informed of order”
Bengaluru Police raid, tear down homes of Bengali Muslim migrants

The post Allegations of selective demolitions are false, Due process of law followed: UP gov’t to SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Homeless and Cold https://sabrangindia.in/homeless-and-cold/ Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:47:20 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2015/12/15/homeless-and-cold/ Demolitions violated the law, the Shakur Basti Demolition Image Courtesy: indiatoday.in   Communalism Combatonline team   Six month old Rukaiyya died as her parents Mohammad Anwar and Safeena Khatoon rushed to save what they could as of their shanty as their home faced demolition by a bulldozer during a drive by the Indian railways on […]

The post Homeless and Cold appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Demolitions violated the law, the Shakur Basti Demolition


Image Courtesy: indiatoday.in
 
Communalism Combatonline team
 
Six month old Rukaiyya died as her parents Mohammad Anwar and Safeena Khatoon rushed to save what they could as of their shanty as their home faced demolition by a bulldozer during a drive by the Indian railways on Sunday, December12 at the Shakur basti slum in north west Delhi raising serious questions of the fundamental rights of the homeless in the country. The temperature in the capital had dipped to a bitter 6.8 degrees Celsius on the day the authorities decided turn their lathis and bulldozers on the homeless.
 
Two demolitions, in the span of a fortnight smack of similar arbitrariness in action. One demolition took place at Belagaon on December 1 (conducted by the DDA), and the second by the Railways on Shakur Basti on December 12, 2015. A question that repeats itself every time such a demolition drive is undertaken is why such brute demolitions of home and hearth take place either during the pouring rain or the bitter cold.
 
The Railways and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) are the two authorities that carried out this demolition. While the former is under the union government, the second is under the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. Several judgements of the Delhi High Court including Sudama Singh and Ors.vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi (11 February 2010), have ordered for due process to be followed before any such action is undertaken.
 
According to these judicial pronouncements, due process includes an adequate survey, notice, and rehabilitation to be carried out before any demolition/eviction in Delhi. The Delhi Housing Rights Task Force (DHRTF)—a collective of individuals and organizations concerned with, and working to protect and promote, the human right to adequate housing in Delhi and across India has strongly condemned this action at the peak of winter. Besides the DHRTF has said that both these demolitions without due process and in violation of the Constitution of India, court judgements, and international human rights standards, including the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement.
 

Judiciary to the rescue, again

PIL against demolition

S Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru, Delhi High Court:
“What was the tearing hurry to demolish in December? …You really don’t care about the people, you just want to remove them,…There were a number of children suffering out there”

“Was there any survey?..“Railways had no business removing people”. Those who were forcibly evicted were protected from removal under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) policy and the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act which provides for protection of jhuggi clusters which existed before 2006.

“You are forgetting what your role as a public authority is. Your role is to ensure that people who satisfy the eligibility criteria don’t get removed. Just because you’re the Railways doesn’t mean the law doesn’t apply to you,” the bench said. The court directed that “responsible senior officials” from the Railways, Delhi Police and DUSIB be present in court Wednesday “with all relevant documents” to answer queries on the demolition drive.
 
Counsel for the Railways (evicting authorities) Jagjeet Singh: I have not received any briefing from officials except for the information that notices had been issued prior to the demolition.

Jagjeet Singh : Railways “not responsible for rehabilitation” since it did not have alternate land. Singh told the court that Railways had “paid 11 crore to the DUSIB” to remove the jhuggi cluster but the agency failed to do it.

DUSIB counsel: We were not even been informed that the demolition drive was to take place.
Railways Counsel Singh:  The removal of the jhuggi cluster was “necessary” since it was “right next to the railway tracks.” “We had to remove them because they were in the safety zone… they were sitting on the tracks and stopping trains. There were also deaths,” Singh argued.
 
Bench refused to accept the argument.
 
Court: “Are they safe now? You have forced them to suffer and shiver in the cold. Every minute that they sped out in the cold counts,” the bench said. The Railways claimed that notices for pending demolitions had been issued in March and again in September, but the drive could not be carried out as Delhi Police delayed providing police personnel to support the demolition drive. “ The bench also refused to accept the argument that the demolition drive was undertaken under orders from the National Green Tribunal which last week imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the Railways, and 1 lakh each on DDA and DUSIB for failing to clear jhuggi clusters near the railways tracks. The bench commented that the government “did not take action” on several orders issued by various courts “till heavy costs were imposed.” “Given the scale of the human tragedy, the court expects all parties to act in coordination to ensure that relief and rehabilitation are given to persons who lost their homes. This should be done without regard to the legality of the Shakurbasti slum as it existed,” the bench said.

(The PIL has been filed by Congress leader Ajay Maken through advocate Aman Panwar who sought court orders to “ensure” rehabilitation of the displaced residents of the jhuggi cluster)
 

People in Belagaon and Shakur Basti, however, were not even given sufficient time to remove their belongings before their homes were demolished. Affected families have been left out in the cold with no provisions for alternative housing or compensation for the loss of their homes and belongings.
 
Through this brazen action carried out on a cold winter’s day when the temperature was at 6.8 degrees Celsius, the state authorities have been in contempt of these judgements of the High Court. Besides these actions have violated, the human rights to adequate housing, information, security of the person and home, food, water and sanitation, health, education, work/livelihood, the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and most importantly, the right to life.
 
While a six-month-old baby girl was killed while the demolition was in progress, another young girl suffered serious injuries, as a result of which she has had to miss her school examinations. After the outcry, the police has registered a case under section 304 A (causing death due to negligence) at Punjabi Bagh police station. Anwar, the father of the small child has, in a statement said a tied bundle of clothes fell down on the girl sleeping on the floor as the family was in a hurry to vacate their shanty.
 
Delhi has a population of over 150,000 homeless people, only about two per cent of who are accommodated in shelters. It is a cruel irony that the central government is demolishing homes and rendering more people homeless despite its claims to provide ‘Housing for All.’
 
In a press release issued yesterday, the DHRTF has said that while the Delhi government has condemned this act of the Railways, and DDA has agreed to stall evictions during the winter, DHRTF believes that concerned officials of both agencies must be held accountable for the grave violations of human rights, and tried according to the law. This is especially important given the refusal of the Railways to accept responsibility for the death of the baby. Members of DHRTF also object to the statement made by the Minister for Railways in Parliament on December 14, 2015 that, “Such encroachments are the main source of garbage and open defecation, etc.” This reflects a very strong prejudice against the marginalised and homeless population of the city.
 
The Delhi Housing Rights Task Force had, in fact, written a letter to DDA on 1 October 2015, requesting the authority not to carry out any demolitions in Delhi. In particular, the letter stated: “Impose an immediate moratorium on all demolitions of existing settlements on all DDA land. The winter season is approaching and any further demolitions at this stage will result in thousands of people being left homeless on the streets of Delhi in the intense cold weather, exposing them to the risk of death, which is in violation of directives issued by the Supreme Court of India.”
 
Given the recent demolitions in Delhi, the DHRTF has submitted a list of the following demands to the Government of India:
1. Impose a moratorium on evictions in Delhi on all central government land (in accordance with the directive of the Delhi government).
2. Provide immediate relief, including accommodation, food, water, medical supplies, and healthcare to all evicted families.
3. Compensate the affected families for loss of their homes and belongings, and provide immediate assistance to help families rebuild their homes at the same site.
4. Provide alternative uniforms, books, and other educational material to children and ensure that they are able to resume school and appear in their examinations.
5. Give special attention to pregnant and lactating women, infants, children, older persons, persons with disabilities, and persons with illness/health concerns, Dalits, and minorities.
6. Coordinate with the Delhi government and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), and provide all the necessary information and support to the affected families.
7. Ensure that all officials responsible for the demolition and loss of homes and life are investigated and tried according to due process of the law.
8. Ensure that provisions of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Housing for All by 2022) and the National Urban Livelihoods Mission – Scheme of Shelters for Urban Homeless are implemented in Delhi.
9. Make adequate budgetary provisions for low-cost housing, especially for in situ upgrading and construction of housing for the homeless. This should include hostels, women’s homes and shelters, family shelters, short-stay homes, rehabilitation centres, special homes for destitute and    marginalised groups, which are linked to livelihoods of the urban poor.
10. Ensure reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) housing in all real estate/housing projects and develop a human rights-based law to provide affordable adequate housing for EWS and Low Income Groups.
11. Implement orders of the High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India.
12. Implement international law and guidelines, including the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement.
 
Members of the Task Force have also called upon the government to ensure that it meets its commitment to protecting the human rights of all residents and takes immediate steps to provide restitution for the human rights violations resulting from its act of commission and omission.

References 

  1. Shakur Basti demolition drive: Children suffering in cold, you don’t care, Delhi High Court tells Railways. http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/shakur-basti-demolition-drive-what-was-the-tearing-hurry-delhi-high-court-raps-railways/
  2. Shakur Basti dwellers freeze in open after slum demolition http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Shakur-Basti-dwellers-freeze-in-open-after-slum-demolition/articleshow/50167165.cms 
  3. Shakur Basti demolition: Case lodged in toddler's death; slugfest between political parties  http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/shakur-basti-demolition-case-lodged-in-toddlers-death-slugfest-between-political-parties-intensifies_1834522.html

 

The post Homeless and Cold appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>