The Delhi High Court directed the MCD to halt any demolition of houses belonging to the accused in the Uttam Nagar Holi murder case until the next hearing. The Court ordered authorities to maintain status quo after petitions were filed by the mothers of the accused fearing punitive demolition.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) not to carry out any demolition of houses belonging to persons accused in the murder of a 26-year-old man in Delhi’s Uttam Nagar during Holi celebrations. The Court said that no demolition action should be taken until it hears the petitions filed by the families of the accused on Wednesday.
The order was passed by Justice Amit Bansal while hearing urgent petitions filed by the mothers of some of the accused persons. The Court made it clear that the civic authority must maintain status quo until the matter is heard again.
During the hearing, Justice Bansal firmly instructed the authorities that no demolition activity should take place until the next hearing. The judge said,
“Nothing should happen between today and tomorrow. Nothing should happen between 4 PM now and tomorrow 10:30 AM tomorrow.”
The Court issued this direction after lawyers representing the respondents requested that the matter be taken up for hearing the following day.
The dispute arises from the murder of 26-year-old Tarun Bhutolia during Holi celebrations on March 4 in Uttam Nagar. According to reports, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had already demolished certain “illegal portions” of a house on March 8 which was allegedly linked to one of the accused in the case.
The case has also attracted public attention because of the communal angle involved. The accused persons in the case belong to the Muslim community, while the victim was from the Hindu community, which has led to heightened tensions and public debate.
Justice Amit Bansal was hearing two petitions filed by Shahnaz and Jarina seeking protection against the possible demolition of their homes by municipal authorities.
Shahnaz is the mother of Sohel and Ayan, both of whom have been questioned by the police in connection with the murder investigation. Jarina, on the other hand, is the mother of Imran, also known as Banti, who has been named as a co-accused in the case.
In their petitions, the mothers argued that the civic authorities had taken demolition action immediately after the First Information Report (FIR) was registered in the case. They claimed that they fear their homes could also be demolished as punishment simply because their sons have been accused in the criminal case.
Jarina’s petition specifically alleged that the demolition action was selective and carried out with improper intent. Her plea stated that the demolished property was not built on public land or government property.
“It is pertinent to note that the house in question [which has been demolished] was not built upon any public road or encroached government land, and several other houses exist in the same vicinity. The selective demolition of only one house strongly indicates malafide exercise of power by the authorities. Further, the authorities had themselves been collecting municipal revenue and electricity charges for several years, which clearly demonstrates that the property had been in recognized existence,”
the plea stated.
The petition further argued that any attempt to demolish their houses without following proper legal procedure would violate their constitutional rights and principles of natural justice.
Jarina also referred to constitutional protections available to citizens, including equality before law, the right to life and personal liberty, and protection of property under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
Her plea also relied on directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in a case dealing with demolitions of structures across the country.
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures (2024) has categorically held that no demolition can be carried out without prior notice, opportunity of hearing, and adherence to statutory procedure, including minimum 15 days’ notice to the affected party. Any action by the municipal authorities in violation of these binding directions would therefore be arbitrary, illegal and liable to be restrained by this Hon’ble Court,”
the plea stated.
The petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court through advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh. The Court will hear the matter again tomorrow to consider the request for protection against further demolition action by the civic authorities.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Demolition
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
