Allahabad High Court’s Split Decision on Property Demolitions
In a notable decision, the Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench delivered a split verdict concerning the demolition of properties belonging to individuals accused of crimes. The verdict arose from differing opinions between Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan.
Justice Sreedharan’s Perspective
Justice Atul Sreedharan advocated for a protective measure, suggesting a two-year moratorium on demolitions of an accused person’s residence following the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). In his decision dated July 20, Justice Sreedharan stated, “Rushing to demolish the dwelling place of a person accused of an offense under the guise of municipal law violations is impermissible. Such actions represent a retributive exercise of executive discretion, and therefore, no action should be taken to demolish the house for two years from the FIR’s registration date.”
Justice Nandan’s Counterpoint
Conversely, Justice Siddharth Nandan disagreed with setting a fixed timeframe for halting demolitions. He emphasized the presumption that government actions adhere to legal standards and natural justice principles, asserting that aggrieved individuals retain the right to appeal to the High Court. Justice Nandan remarked, “In my humble opinion, no fixed time period can be established, as it would effectively suspend the operation of an enactment during that period.”
Referral to the Chief Justice
Due to the divergence in opinions, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a third judge. The issues under consideration include whether Article 226 of the Indian Constitution allows for a universal restraint on state actions under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and whether authorities should issue a ‘notice of intent’ a year before initiating demolition procedures for statutory norm violations.
Background and Ongoing Concerns
Earlier in February, the Court highlighted concerns about the Uttar Pradesh government’s continued punitive demolitions against properties linked to accused individuals, despite the Supreme Court’s directions to halt such actions. The issue was brought to the forefront by a petition from a family alleging their house was targeted by a mob, in collusion with the police, after a relative was implicated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.
More Read
Justice Sreedharan’s Additional Observations
Justice Sreedharan noted that demolitions often proceed immediately following an FIR’s registration, with apparent compliance with statutory requirements. He criticized the continuation of ‘bulldozer justice’ as a ‘vile species of colorable exercise of executive discretion.’
Justice Nandan’s Call for Accountability
Justice Nandan acknowledged the rise in unauthorized constructions partly due to population growth but insisted this does not justify illegal building practices. He called for accountability, requiring that notices of construction norm violations be accompanied by proceedings against the responsible officials, with resolutions reached within six months.
Both justices identified the need for equitable state action, ensuring that enforcement is not selectively applied. Individuals facing selective action may approach the Court to challenge ‘retributive exercise of executive discretion’ and protect their fundamental rights.
More Read
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Shamsuddin Khan, Syed Ahmed Faizan, and Zaheer Asghar, while Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi represented the state.
[Read Judgments]
