New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court raised questions on the administration running bulldozers on the houses of accused in various states. The court asked how can someone's house be demolished without following the procedure laid down in law. How can someone's house be demolished just because he is an accused?

On the complaint of demolition of the house of the accused without notice, the apex court said that even if he is guilty, his house cannot be demolished without the procedure prescribed in the law. The Supreme Court has sought suggestions from all the parties, indicating to issue guidelines for the whole country in this regard.

The next hearing will be on September 17

However, during the hearing, the court clarified that it will not protect illegal construction. On the other hand, the Uttar Pradesh government denied the allegations of illegal demolition of construction and said that action is taken only under the prescribed procedure of law. Being accused of any crime can never be the basis for demolition of immovable property. The case will be heard again on September 17.

These comments and directions were given by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan during the hearing of the petitions filed by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind and others. In the petition, Jamiat has alleged that bulldozers were being run on the houses of the accused in states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan etc. in an illegal manner.

Concern raised in the petition over the use of bulldozers

The petition states that the dangerous trend of bulldozer justice has increased in various states. In this, a particular community and the underprivileged class are being targeted. Senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Farooq Rashid appeared on behalf of Jamiat, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh government.

When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh government, told the bench that the state government had filed an affidavit in this matter on August 9 itself and in that affidavit, the state government has said that if a person is accused of any crime, then this cannot be the basis for demolishing his house.

Court will issue guidelines

He said that no immovable property can be demolished just on the basis that a person is accused of a crime. Mehta said that immovable property is demolished only by following the legal process in case of violation of Municipal Act and Development Authorities Act. The bench told Mehta that if you are accepting this situation then it is a good thing. The court will record your statement and issue guidelines for the whole country.

Mehta said that the petitioners are presenting the case in such a way as if if someone is accused of any crime, his house is demolished, whereas this is not true. They can show that the authorities had issued a notice much before demolishing the house. Demolition is done only when the construction is illegal.

Will not protect illegal construction or encroachment: Court

The bench also clarified that it will not protect any illegal construction or encroachment on the road, but there should be guidelines in this regard. Justice Gavai said that how can someone's house be demolished just because he is an accused. Even if he is guilty, his house cannot be demolished. Justice Vishwanathan said that action can be taken against illegal construction as per the law.

Mehta said that in this case, the petition has been filed by Jamiat for those whose houses have collapsed. He said that in view of the affidavit of the Uttar Pradesh government, the court should close this case, but advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Jamiat, urged the court to issue guidelines in this regard.

The court directed to file suggestions

Dushyant Dave said that this matter is not just about one place, it is a wider issue and the court should hear it and set guidelines. Justice Vishwanathan said that it is important to ensure that no one takes advantage of the shortcomings. Even if the construction is illegal, action should be taken according to the law. A father's son can be stubborn, but if someone's house is demolished on this basis, then this method is not right.

Senior advocate CU Singh also argued on behalf of some petitioners. Dave and Singh said that there are some cases here in which bulldozer action has been taken when the tenant is accused. After hearing both the parties, the court said that everyone should submit their suggestions, so that the court can set proper guidelines for the whole country in this regard. The court directed all the parties to give their suggestions to Madhya Pradesh Additional Advocate General Nachiketa Joshi and ordered the case to be heard again on September 17.