The Allahabad HC has delivered a significant split verdict on the controversial practice of "bulldozer justice," raising crucial questions about punitive property demolitions and executive discretion in Uttar Pradesh.
IMAGE: Kindly note that this image has been posted for representational purposes only. Photograph: ANI Photo/span>
Key Points
- The Allahabad high court has delivered a split verdict on the legality of "bulldozer justice" and punitive property demolitions.
- Justice Atul Sreedharan proposed a two-year moratorium on demolitions from the FIR date, deeming it a retributive exercise.
- Justice Siddharth Nandan disagreed, stating no fixed time period can be imposed, upholding the presumption of lawful government action.
- The matter has been referred to the Chief Justice for a third judge's opinion due to the judicial dissent.
- The case highlights ongoing concerns about executive overreach in property demolitions despite Supreme Court directives.
A two-judge bench of the Allahabad high court has delivered a split verdict on "bulldozer justice", a term used for punitive demolition of properties linked to accused persons.
The senior judge of the bench, Justice Atul Sreedharan, directed that the house of an accused will not be demolished for a period of two years from the date of the FIR, but the other judge -- Justice Siddharth Nandan -- said such a direction cannot be given.
Considering the dissent, the court referred the matter to the chief justice for the opinion of a third judge.
Judges Deliver Dissenting Opinions
In a separate verdict passed on Monday, Justice Sreedharan said, "Rushing to demolish the dwelling place of a person accused of an offence under the garb of the same being violative of municipal laws is impermissible, the same being a retributive exercise of executive discretion and so, no action may be taken to demolish his house for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR."
On the other hand, Justice Nandan said there is always a presumption that the government will only proceed in accordance with law and adhere to the principles of natural justice. He further said it is always open for an aggrieved person to approach the high court.
"In my humble opinion, no fixed time period can be put for as a matter of fact, it would result in keeping the operation of an enactment in abeyance for the said period," Justice Nandan added.
Key Questions Referred To Chief Justice
One of the issues referred to the chief justice is whether while exercising the powers under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution, a direction can be issued in rem, for a period of two years or likewise, where the government may be restrained to take any action under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, though subject to some exceptions.
Another issue is whether before initiating a procedure under municipal laws, can a direction be given to authorities to give a "notice of intent" a year prior to the initiation of the said procedure for the alleged violation of a statutory norm.
In February, the high court called out the Uttar Pradesh government for continuing with the punitive demolitions of properties linked to accused persons despite the Supreme Court's directions to refrain from taking such actions. The court had then examined the issue in detail.
Background Of The Demolition Case
In the present case, the high court was dealing with a plea filed by Faimuddeen and two other members of a family, who had alleged that a mob targeted their house in collusion with police immediately after one of their relatives was booked in a case lodged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act at the Sumerpur police station in Hamirpur district.
Later, Faimuddeen was also made an accused in the case. Now, they have approached the high court apprehending that their house would be demolished as according to them, their properties are marked for destruction.
However, the plea taken on behalf of the state is that the petition is premature as no cause of action has arisen and the petitioners have to respond to the notices issued to them.
Ongoing Concerns Over Punitive Demolitions
In a detailed but separate ruling, Justice Sreedharan said the court has witnessed several cases where the notice for demolition was issued to persons occupying a dwelling place following the registration of an FIR and thereafter, demolition was carried out.
These demolitions have continued unabated, notwithstanding the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the judge said.
However, in his separate ruling, Justice Nandan said the court is conscious of the fact that the rapid rise in unauthorised constructions is partly attributable to the increase in the population, but the same cannot justify illegal constructions.
The judge called for fixing accountability in such matters.
