“I know that the state has many responsibilities in ensuring peace and tranquility, but please ensure that things are not done selectively. There needs to be checks and balances. The goal of achieving peace is one thing; The purpose of destruction is different… please do not do anything illegal”: Judge Attau Rehman Masoodi verbally told Additional Advocate General VK Shahi.

While dealing with the issue, verbal observation was made. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) defense moved by Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (via Vice President UP East, Sayed Mehfuzur Rehman) The Uttar Pradesh Government’s proposal to demolish properties belonging to the accused in the Bahraich violence case has been challenged.

a bench Justice Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi He also added that before any demolition is carried out, a proper survey and demarcation should be carried out in accordance with relevant rules and laws.

Allahabad HC tells @UPGovt orally (about giving #Demolition notices): When you propose to demolish a structure, it cannot be done selectively. The state must comply with the law and ensure compliance with the law at every step.

The division bench hearing the matter today noted that the state’s reply against the PIL plea was missing in the file and therefore posting the matter to next week, the Court asked the UP Government to respond specifically to the following three aspects of the matter:

• Have research and restrictions been carried out in accordance with the relevant law before notification to private citizens?
• Whether the state conducted an investigation to determine whether the persons to whom the notice was given were the actual owners of the property or part tenants.
• Whether notifications are made by the relevant authorities.

Judge Masoodi also said the court suo moto It was the duty of the state to take into account the issue of civil liberties and prevent busy institutions from playing with the emotions of the people, but also to comply with the law.

Justice Masoodi also added that a person cannot simply come along, cause trouble and then seek protection. “This can’t be done eitherhe said.

In this context, the Court posted the matter for next week and asked the State’s attorney to ensure that nothing illegal is done in the meantime.

“We must all see that the law is followed in letter and spirit” said the Court.

It may be noted here that last month, in an extraordinary Sunday Hearing, the Court took note of UP Govt’s PWDept notification issued to residents without mentioning the number of houses located there. 38th kilometer of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road, Those who are duly authorized for construction.

“…what disturbs the consciousness of this court is the notification that the answer should be submitted in a short period of three days. It is also not very clear from the notification which may require clarification that permission has been duly granted for construction in respect of the number of houses located at kilometer 38 of District Road, Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj,“The court stated this.

Although the Court in its judgment had not EXPRESSLY stopped the demolition, it had observed that there was no reason to believe that the UP Government would not follow the Supreme Court order on demolitions in letter and spirit.

More importantly, the stand of the state government is that the buildings/houses notified by the PW Department have been constructed in violation of Rule 7 of the UP Roadside Land Control Rules 1964.

Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules provides that buildings will not be built within building lines, i.e., within 60 feet for open and agricultural areas and 45 feet for urban and industrial areas from the center line of any Major Regional Road (MDR).

The state government defended this Any elevated structure within a specified distance from the center of the Main Regional Road (MDR) is illegal and doomed to collapse.

The state government also stated (as stated in its counter-affidavit) that the surrounding area 38th kilometer of Kundasar-Mahsi-Nanpara Road The ongoing construction is prone to accidents as it turns the previously straight road into a sharp bend.

Thus, on October 16, 2024, a 14-member committee was formed to inspect the violated areas on the roads in question and determine their boundaries. During the inspection, the committee found that the “S” curve near the 38th kilometer was caused by construction too close to the road, which reduced visibility and caused frequent accidents.

The inspection report identified 24 buildings that violated the provisions of Rule 7. Thereupon, a notification was made to 23 people mentioned in the audit report. The State Government claims that the PW Department has also confirmed that no permission has been issued for construction in the notified area.

Bahrain Incident

For those who don’t know, communal violence broke out in the region on October 13, the last day of Durga Puja celebrations. Maharajganj/Mehsi An incident occurred in the Bahrain Region when some local members of a particular community objected to loud music being played. The altercation also resulted in the death of a 22-year-old man named Ram Gopal Mishra.

Mishra allegedly climbed onto the roof of the house of a person from a particular community and dismantled/teared the green flag (traditionally associated with Islam) and started waving the saffron flag, while people in the procession chanted “Jai” slogans. Shri Ram” and “Jai Bajrang Bali”.

Soon after, Mishra was shot by someone and died. As a result, people carrying sticks and iron rods protested and set fire to shops, vehicles and private properties belonging to a particular community.

The violence lasted approximately 2 days and internet services were stopped for 4 days.

Advocate Saurabh Shankar Srivastava sided with the petitioner.