A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has given a split verdict on whether accused persons should receive temporary protection from demolition of their homes after an FIR is registered. Justice Atul Sreedharan ruled that no bulldozer action should be taken against the house of an accused for two years from the date of registration of the FIR. Justice Siddharth Nandan, however, disagreed, saying the Court cannot issue such a blanket direction. As the judges differed, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice for placing it before a third judge.
Justice Sreedharan raises concern over punitive demolitions
In his judgment delivered on 20th July, Justice Sreedharan observed that authorities should not immediately begin demolition proceedings by using municipal law when the action appears to be linked to a criminal case. He said the Court has repeatedly seen demolition notices being issued soon after an FIR is filed, followed by demolitions after completing only the required legal formalities. According to him, such bulldozer actions have continued despite the Supreme Court’s directions against punitive demolitions, making a two-year protection necessary.
Justice Nandan rejects fixed waiting period
Justice Nandan took a different view, saying there is a presumption that government authorities act according to law and follow the principles of natural justice. He said any person affected by demolition proceedings has the right to approach the High Court for relief. In his opinion, imposing a fixed two-year restriction would effectively suspend the operation of the law, which the Court cannot do.
Matter sent to third judge
The Bench has asked the Chief Justice to place the matter before a third judge to decide two legal questions. The first is whether the High Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, can stop the State from taking action under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, for two years or any similar period. The second is whether authorities should be required to issue a “notice of intent” one year before starting proceedings under municipal laws for violations of statutory norms.
Case background and observations
The case stems from a petition filed by three members of a family who said their house was targeted by a mob along with the police after one of their relatives was booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.
The High Court had earlier, in February, expressed concern over the continuation of demolitions linked to accused persons despite the Supreme Court’s directions. Justice Nandan also called for accountability of officials, saying that whenever notices are issued for unauthorised constructions, parallel action should also be taken against the officers responsible, with such proceedings completed within six months. He further said selective action against one individual while ignoring similar violations nearby could be challenged before the High Court as a violation of fundamental rights.
