NewDelhi: The court of law in India has given a very negative response over the other petitioners’ case in which a house was brought down by the society in the state of Uttar Pradesh under the pretext of road infringement. The Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud directed the UP government to compensate the person who lost his home ₹25 lakh, at the same time stipulating a lawful course of action when disasters strike.
vide reasons of seeing the manner of the demolition, justice Chandrachud asked critical questions during the proceedings. “You concluded that he was an encroacher of 3.7 square metres; While we are hearing this, what proof is given? How on earth can one just start pulling down people’s houses? This is anarchy,” he said, adding that the action is reckless and a clear disregard for the principle of procedural fairness.
The lawyer of the petitioner urged investigation of the matter because there was no issuance of any notice before the demolition. The state’s counsel agreed that 123 structures had been impacted out of which 117 were illegal constructions. Justice J.B. Pardiwala also threw more questions as to why such structures are referred to as unauthorised and demanded to know what has been done for the last fifty years? This, he said the state should listen to the directions from the NHRC and not just defend the actions of a single officer.
The case arises from the civil pleading filed by Manoj Tibrewal against demolition of his ancestral home and shop in Ward Number 16, Hamid Nagar. act this the Supreme Court of Pakistan took the cognizance suo motu in this matter and issued notice in connexion with the writ petition.
Justice Pardiwala also raised issues with the timing stressing that authorities arrived with bulldozers before the families could manage to evacuate, saying it was akin to mere grab of property. He further said, “Regarding widening of the road it look like is just an excuse; I fail to see any reason for this exercise.”
Responding to the argument, the Chief Justice urged the state government to convene investigations on the circumstances under which the structures on the national highway were demolished, yet no legal width of the national highway, or other outrageous claims of encroachment as stated above were provided by the state government with any concrete legal papers. He noted that there was no documentary evidence to support claim that the encroachments were properly marked or that land had been purchased for the project.
That the state could not state the correct parameters of the alleged encroachment added on questions asked. The Chief Justice then asked, “Why was there necessity to bring down houses even beyond the area said to be encroaching on the 3.75 metres?” The NHRC had noted that the extinguished part was way beyond the alleged 3.75 metres.
Supreme Court directions has underlined the imperative call of board responsibilities and legal compliance of the legal affairs in the cases dealing with the rights in land and properties in India.