Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up UP authorities for an “unlawful” demolition in 2019
New Delhi:
The full textual content of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud’s latest judgment on unlawful demolitions in Uttar Pradesh mentions “justice by bulldozers is unknown to any civilised system of jurisprudence.”
The Supreme Court on Wednesday had pulled up the UP authorities for an “unlawful” demolition in 2019 whereas issuing instructions to all states and Union Territories (UT) on the process to be adopted throughout road-widening and removing of encroachments.
A bench of Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had additionally directed the UP authorities to pay Rs 25 lakh compensation to the person whose home was razed in 2019 for a road-widening undertaking.
“… There is a grave hazard that if high-handed and illegal behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of residents’ properties will happen as a selective reprisal for extraneous causes,” Chief Justice Chandracud stated within the order.
“Citizens’ voices can’t be throttled by a risk of destroying their properties and homesteads. The final safety which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The regulation doesn’t undoubtedly condone illegal occupation of public property and encroachments,” he stated.
“Bulldozer justice is solely unacceptable beneath the rule of regulation. If it have been to be permitted, the constitutional recognition of the fitting to property beneath Article 300A can be lowered to a lifeless letter,” the Supreme Court stated.
The Supreme Court had then directed the UP chief secretary to conduct an inquiry into the matter pertaining to a home in Maharajganj district and take appropriate motion. The bench elaborated on the steps {that a} state or its instrumentality should undertake earlier than taking motion in pursuance to a road-widening undertaking.
In case an encroachment was discovered, the state should subject discover to the encroacher to take away it and if the correctness and validity of the discover was objected to, the state would subject a “talking order” retaining in thoughts the rules of pure justice, the Supreme Court stated.
In a state of affairs of the objection being rejected, an inexpensive discover can be given to the individual in opposition to whom the antagonistic motion was proposed, to take away the encroachment, it added.