A day after Delhi High Court orally asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) not to undertake any demolition against the homes of persons accused of the murder of a 26-year-old in Uttam Nagar during Holi celebrations, MCD responded that houses of the petitioners were built after encroaching upon a public street and no notice is required to be served on the accused before resorting to demolition action.
Justice Amit Bansal also directed the petitioners to withdraw the current petition and file a fresh petition confining themselves to demolition action by MCD without delving into the police probe in the murder case."It is pointed out that averments in the petition are vague and a separate cause of action is made. The petitioners seek liberty to withdraw the petition and file a better one within a week," the Court directed.
"The demolition that took place is not (just) an unauthorised construction. They have encroached on the public street. It was not an isolated exercise. It was a routine exercise. He (the petitioner) has also encroached on the public street," the MCD said.The MCD counsel said that the petitioner should be asked to state on affidavit that the houses in question are not on public street.
The MCD had on March 8 demolished certain "illegal portions" of a house linked to one of the accused in the murder 26-year-old Tarun Bhutolia during Holi celebrations on March 4.The accused persons belong to Muslim community while the victim is a Hindu and the incident has assumed communal colour.Justice Bansal was hearing petitions filed by Shahnaz and Jarina seeking protection against the demolition of their homes.
While Shahnaz is the mother of Sohel and Ayan (who have been interrogated by the police in the case), Jarina is the mother of co-accused Imran alias Banti.It is their case that the MCD carried out the arbitrary demolition activity immediately after the FIR was registered. They apprehend that their homes may also be demolished as a punitive measure merely because they have been implicated in the criminal case.
"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.She added that the apprehended demolition would be in direct violation of the principles of natural justice, constitutional protections under Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution and the Supreme Court directions.
Follow us
