(Judicial Quest News Network)
In a significant move Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind, filed an Application in Apex Court against the illegal demolitions by Utter Pradesh Government.
A day after the demolition of the house of a political activist, accused in Pragyaraj violence that broke out in the wake of protests over remarks on the Prophet Mohammed.
The plea seeks a stay on further demolition drive that the authorities may be planning out in Kanpur.
It is submitted that That adoption of such extra-legal measures is clearly
in violation of the principles of natural justice, especially when this Hon’ble Court is hearing the present matter. It is pertinent to note that in the present matter this Hon’ble Court ordered stay of demolitions that were being carried out as a punitive measure in Northwest Delhi in similar circumstances.
It is in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice as also the Municipal laws pertaining to demolition of properties, several properties were demolished without giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the effected persons/families.
According to the Muslim organisation, the present situation is more alarming as the Supreme Court had earlier issued a stay order on illegal demolitions that were being carried out as a punitive measure in Northwest Delhi in similar circumstances.
The application has sought directions to initiate action against officials responsible for the house’s demolition allegedly in violation of rule of law
And the Municipal laws enacted by the State of Utter Pradesh.
The reliefs have also been sought through two applications filed in its earlier petition.
The Application filed through Advocate Kabir Dixit and Advocate Sarim Naveed has sought the directions to the State of Utter Pradesh that no precipitative action be taken in Kanpur District against the residential or commercial property of any accused in any criminal proceedings as an extra-legal punitive measure.
The application has stated that after some offensive remarks were made by two political leaders of the ruling party against Prophet Mohammed riots broke out at the Centre and the State level.
It has been further stated that on the day of the protest, a scuffle broke out between the Hindu and Muslim religious community and stone pelting took place between the two communities.
It is also submitted that after the riots broke out in Kanpur many persons in authority have stated in the media that the properties of the accused/suspects would be confiscated and demolished, including the chief minister of the state who said in the media that the houses of accused persons would be razed using bulldozers.
The Application states that the demolition exercise of any nature must be carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable laws, and only after due notice and opportunity of hearing to each of the effected persons as mandated by the Supreme Court.
That in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice as also the municipal law pertaining to demolition of properties, several properties were demolished without giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the affected persons/ families.
That even as per the laws enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State, the affected persons are entitled to a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any such demolish is carried out. As per Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, demolition of a building shall not be undertaken unless the affected person is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Further, Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 also requires that the affected person be heard before proceeding with the demolition and be given at least 15 days’ notice. Moreover, as per the aforementioned Act of 1973 a person aggrieved with the order of demolition is entitled to appeal against it to the Chairman within a period 4 annexed herewith as Annexure A-2 (From Pages 13 to 17). of 30 days of the order. Hence, the demolition of properties carried out by the state government in retaliation was in breach of the laws enacted by the state legislature itself.
Hence, the demolition of properties carried out by the state government in retaliation was in breach of the laws enacted by the state legislature itself.