In a major order, the Supreme Court today (10th May) upheld the Allahabad High Court’s Order to demolish illegal settlements in Akbar Nagar in Lucknow. The bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Dutta agreed with the High Court’s verdict that the colony has been constructed on a floodplain area and the people living there do not have any document or title to show ownership of the land.
The Supreme Court verdict came in a petition filed by the residents of the area. Around 15,000 residents of Akbar Nagar will be affected after the planed demolitions on the Kukrail riverbank takes place. The petitioners had argued that use of the term floodplain was wrong because it was a nullah, not a river. However, the court said that a report by Lucknow Development Authority and UP govt that included Satellite images, says that the nullah originates from a natural spring before entering reserve forest and then flows 19 km and enters urban area of Lucknow.
Therefore, the court concluded that the colony has been constructed on a floodplain area. The judgment also noted details of floods in the area and the existence of a sewage treatment plant (STP), emphasizing the risks posed by the illegal constructions. “In view of the aforesaid, we are in agreement with the High Court that the colony has been constructed on a floodplain area,” the Supreme Court concluded, stating that the petitioners lack any legal title or document, and their claim rests solely on adverse possession.
However, the court said that those who have applied for alternate accommodation should not be evicted before they are provided houses at other places. The court noted that 1500 applications have been found to be eligible for alternative houses, and further 706 are under scrutiny.
The Supreme Court rejected the objections of the petitioners claiming that the houses provided as alternatives are located in remote places. The court said that when they settled at Akbar Nagar, it was also a remote area, but it has become centre of the city.
Sternly rebuking the complaints of location of the offered residences, the court said, “You are getting what encroachers get. You are getting alternate accommodation.”
When the lawyers of petitioners said that there are other floodplain areas in the city where constructions have taken place, the Court said that the state govt will undertake a survey of the encroachments. The court also directed the govt to file an affidavit within 3 months saying that they will draw up an action plan and remove all unauthorised encroachments from the floodplains and catchment area.
However, the bench said that it will not use the word floodplain in the order after the petitioner lawyer said that it could create havoc.