A group of 47 residents from Assam has filed a contempt petition against state authorities for violating a Supreme Court order that halted demolitions without permission. The petition, representing residents from Sonapur District, will be reviewed by the same bench on September 30, as they claim the government continues to demolish homes despite the court’s directive.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A group of 47 residents from Assam has filed a contempt petition against the state authorities, accusing them of violating a recent Supreme Court order that halted demolitions without prior permission. The petition arises after government authorities continued to demolish homes, allegedly in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling that prohibits demolishing properties of individuals merely because they are accused of criminal involvement.
The contempt petition, which has been filed by Advocate Addel Ahmed, represents residents from the Sonapur District in Kamrup Metro, Assam. These residents claim that despite the Supreme Court’s clear directive, the government continues to proceed with demolitions. The court had specifically ordered the suspension of demolitions until further permission was granted. This current contempt petition will be reviewed by the same bench that passed the original ruling, led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, on September 30th.
The Supreme Court, in its September 17th order, made it clear that government authorities should “hold their hands” and cease any demolition activities. The order was a response to growing concerns about demolishing properties without proper legal procedures, especially in cases where the property owners were merely accused of crimes but not yet convicted.
Despite this directive, the petitioners have approached the court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the state officials. They argue that the authorities are committing “gross deliberate and willful contempt” of the Supreme Court’s earlier order.
The petition filed by Advocate Addel Ahmed highlights that the 47 petitioners have been living on the land in question for several decades. According to the petition, these residents have legal standing through deeds of Power of Attorney, which were executed by the original pattadars (landowners). The residents claim that the land was legally transferred to them and that many of these transfers were made by individuals from protected classes.
“The Petitioners respectfully submit that, contrary to the claims made by the District Administration authorities asserting that they are illegal occupiers and encroachers of tribal lands or those of a protected class, they have been residing on these lands with the consent of the actual pattadars. In many cases, the true pattadars are individuals from the protected class who have permitted the Petitioners to build houses on their lands after executing a power of attorney.”
-the petition states.
Additionally, the petition refutes claims made by the District Administration that these residents are illegal occupiers. It emphasizes that the petitioners have not encroached upon any tribal land or land reserved for the protected classes.
The petition further asserts that these residents have been living on the said lands since the 1950s. The court was informed that these lands were granted to the residents under government-issued patta (land titles) long before the formation of the tribal belt. The petitioners argue that their residency is legitimate and predates any laws that might now categorize the land as restricted or protected.
“It has also been stated that the Petitioners have never encroached upon or seized any land within the tribal belt. They have been residents of the scheduled lands since the 1950s, having received government-granted pattas long before the establishment of the Tribal Belt.”
– the petition elaborates.
The petition accuses the authorities of violating the established rule of law. According to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, Section 165(3)(a) and (b) of Chapter X outlines specific procedures that must be followed before any eviction or demolition can occur. This includes serving a notice of eviction to the occupants, granting them a period of up to one month to vacate the premises and remove any constructions.
The demolition of the petitioners’ homes, according to their legal team, blatantly ignores this procedure.
“The respondents’ demolition of the petitioners’ houses is claimed to be in violation of the rule of law and the principles of established legal procedures.”
-the petition argues.
The petition was drawn by a team of legal advocates, including Abdur Razzaque Bhuyan, Sana Parveen, and Arijeet Baruah. These legal representatives are fighting to hold the state accountable for failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s directive.
This contempt petition comes against the backdrop of a broader national debate on the legality of demolishing properties as a punitive measure. In a separate case, the Supreme Court had previously raised questions regarding the growing trend of demolishing properties belonging to individuals accused of criminal activity, even before any convictions were made.
Earlier, a petition filed by the organization Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, following the demolition incidents in Jahangirpuri, sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to stop the destruction of properties without proper legal process. The petition argued that government administrations in various states have been using demolitions as a form of punishment against people accused of crimes, which violates constitutional protections.
The Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind petition highlighted a disturbing trend, where incidents of demolitions have increased, particularly targeting residential and commercial properties. The plea urged the Supreme Court to issue stringent guidelines to prevent such actions without due process.
“In their petition, the organization stated that there has been a rise in incidents of demolitions of residential and commercial properties by government administrations in several states, labeling these actions as a ‘punitive measure’ against individuals allegedly involved in criminal activities.”
– the plea states.
