Supreme Court grants one week interim protection to petitioners facing property demolition in UP

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday granted interim protection for a week to two petitioners facing demolition of properties in Uttar Pradesh, and directed that status quo be maintained by the parties till then.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked the petitioners, who said that partial demolition of their residential or marriage hall premises was already carried out by the authorities, to approach the Allahabad High Court for appropriate order.

The bench said it is granting interim protection for a week considering that partial demolition has already been affected.

"Further considering the aforesaid fact, we grant interim protection for a period of one week from today as status quo would be maintained by the parties," the bench said.

The top court made clear that interim protection granted by it would not influence the high court in entertaining the petition and considering the prayer for stay on its own merits.

The bench passed the order while hearing a plea seeking to restrain the authorities from carrying out any further demolition of petitioners residential or marriage hall structures without following due process of law.

At the outset, the bench asked the counsel appearing for the petitioners why they have moved the apex court first and not approached the Allahabad High Court.

The counsel said the top court had considered the issue of "bulldozer justice".

"The court has already given a detailed judgement. Then approach the high court and take benefit of that judgement. What is this? Why should you come in (Article) 32 every time," the bench said.

"It is not that the Allahabad High Court does not consider urgency. You have to make a mention," the bench said.

The counsel said he would move the high court and the top court should protect him for at least 15 days.

"Then everyone will come to this court and then seek a direction and interim protection to approach the high court. You approach the high court and get appropriate order. You make a request before the high court," the bench said.

When the counsel said the powers of the apex court are enormous and it has entertained such matters earlier, the bench observed, "We can entertain all the matters before this court and (Article) 226 will be made redundant".

The counsel said one of the petitioners was a 75-year-old man and he had pleaded before the authorities to give him notice and hear him but no notice was given.

"Is this the law of this country?" he argued.

The bench said the petitioners can make the same submission before the high court.

The counsel said the authorities were standing with bulldozer over there and they would demolish the property.

"We will give protection for a week. You approach the high court and make a mention," the bench said.

It said in demolition matters before the high court, the day they are mentioned, they are taken up for hearing also.

The bench refused to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

It said the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional high court under Article 226.

"The petitioner is also granted liberty to make a mention before the concerned bench for urgent listing of the matter considering the fact that demolition exercise has already begun and according to the contents in the petition, partial demolition has already been affected," the bench said.

The counsel said the action taken by the authorities was contempt in the face of the apex court's order in the demolition matter.

"You file a contempt petition if you want," the bench said.

In a significant judgement delivered in November last year, the top court had laid down pan-India guidelines and said no property should be demolished without a prior show cause notice and the affected must be given 15 days to respond.

The executive cannot assume judicial powers to punish citizens by demolishing their properties without following due process, the top court had said while terming such excesses "high-handed and arbitrary" and ruling that they need to be dealt with the "heavy hand of the law".

Passing a slew of directions, the top court had made clear that they would not be applicable if there was an unauthorised structure in a public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river or water bodies and also in cases where there was an order for demolition made by a court of law.

The judgement was delivered on the pleas seeking framing of guidelines on demolition of properties.