Supreme Court and CM Yogi Adityanath
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure with the Uttar Pradesh authorities for demolishing the petitioner’s house with bulldozers due to road encroachment. The Supreme Court said that the UP government should compensate Rs 25 lakh to those whose houses were demolished. CJI DY Chandrachud said you said he had encroached 3.7 square meters. We heard about it, but we didn’t give any proof, but how could you start demolishing other people’s houses like this? It’s chaos, breaking into someone’s house.
He said it was completely arbitrary and where was the correct procedure followed? We have an affidavit which states that no notice was given, you just went to the site and notified people. In such cases, we may be willing to provide punitive damages. Does this serve the purpose of justice?
Counsel for the petitioner requested that the matter be investigated. The CJI asked the state government lawyer, how many houses have been demolished? State counsel said 123 of them were illegal structures. Justice JB Pardiwala said, on what basis are you saying this is unauthorized, what have you done since 1960, what have you been doing in the last 50 years, very arrogant, the state must respect the orders of the NHRC, you are sitting to protect the officers Behavior.
The CJI said suo motu has received a letter from Manoj Tibrewal complaining about the demolition of his ancestral house and shop in Mohalla Hamidnagar Sector 16. Notice was issued on the writ petition.
Justice JB Pardiwala told the Uttar Pradesh government lawyer that last night your officers destroyed the yellow-marked area for road widening and the next morning you came with bulldozers. Like a takeover, you don’t bring a bulldozer to tear the house down or even give the family time to vacate the house. The expansion is just an excuse, it doesn’t seem to be the reason for the entire exercise.
In the order, the CJI said that there is a need to investigate the matter. UP State did not produce any documents showing the original width of NH. Second, there is no physical documentation that any investigation was conducted to identify the infringement. Third, there is no evidence that the land was acquired for the project.
The state government failed to reveal the exact extent of the encroachment. The width of the notified road and the extent of the applicant’s property within the notified width. In this case, why should houses outside the area of ​​alleged encroachment be demolished? The NHRC report stated that the damaged section was well over 3.75 meters.
