The judges in Allahabad High Court have had different opinions on the bulldozer action. After that, the case was sent to the third judge’s bench. Due to differences, now the bench of the third judge will hold the final hearing and decision. This case of the High Court is considered important for the entire state in matters related to bulldozer action. Let us tell you that in the case of Hamirpur, the division bench could not reach a consensus on the legality of the bulldozer action.
Allahabad High Court Of Justice Atul Srivastava said that someone’s house cannot be demolished merely on the basis of FIR being registered. Under normal circumstances, demolition does not take place for two years after the FIR, the exception being vacating public land. It was also suggested to give one year’s notice before taking action on alleged illegal constructions that are three years old or more. Justice Siddharth Nandan disagreed with these suggestions.
Difference of opinion among judges on bulldozer action
Justice Siddharth Nandan said that such instructions cannot be given. In a separate judgment passed on July 20, Justice Sreedharan said: “The haste to demolish the residence of a person accused of a crime under the guise of violating municipal laws is unwarranted, amounts to a vindictive exercise of executive discretion and, therefore, no action can be taken to demolish his house for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR.”
The judge also said that the way to the High Court is always open for the aggrieved person. Justice Nandan said, “In my opinion no fixed time can be kept because, in effect, it would stop the work of law for that time.”
Opinion will be taken from the third judge on these issues
In view of the disagreement, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice so that the third judge could take his opinion on these issues.
- Whether in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction for a period of 2 years or the like is issued where the State is restrained from taking any action under the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, subject to certain exemptions; And
- Can authorities be directed to give a notice of intention, one year before the commencement of the proceedings, for an alleged breach of a statutory rule, before initiating any proceedings under municipal laws?
In February, the court had rapped the Uttar Pradesh government for continuing to demolish properties belonging to accused people as punishment despite Supreme Court directions not to take such action. The court had then investigated the matter in detail.
Read this also- Bulldozer will run on Azam Khan’s University, RDA filed caveat in Allahabad HC
Leave a Reply