Back
Finds Affidavits 'Paradoxical' Over Varanasi House Demolition Despite
The has flagged a stark contradiction in the affidavits filed by three state authorities facing for allegedly demolishing a house in Varanasi while a order was in force. Justice Vikas Budhwar, hearing the filed by Javed Alam, observed that the authorities' defense was "quite paradoxical and amazing."
Background: A Order and an Alleged Demolition
The dispute originates from a
filed by Javed Alam challenging a notice dated
, issued under Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P.
Act, 1959, which threatened demolition of his house at 39/12, Dalmandi, Varanasi. On
, the High Court disposed of the petition, directing the Municipal Commissioner to constitute a fresh inspection committee with an independent architect and an Executive Engineer from another department. The court specifically ordered that
"parties are directed to maintain
as on date"
until the process was completed.
Alam then filed a , alleging that despite filing his objection on , his premises were forcibly demolished on , without any order being passed on his objection.
The 'Paradoxical' Affidavits
In response, three opposite parties—the Municipal Commissioner, the District Magistrate, and the —filed affidavits. Each denied carrying out the demolition.
The
claimed it had complied with the court's order by forming a new inspection team and issuing a fresh notice on
. It asserted that
"no legal action of any kind has been taken by the
"
and that the demolition was
"carried out by another department."
The District Magistrate admitted in his that he was present at the spot on , with police force, but stated that the demolition was carried out by the for widening Dalmandi Road. He claimed the order was never brought to his notice.
The contended that only portions of the building already sold by Khurshid Alam, Mehtab Alam, and Jahangir Alam were removed for road construction, and that Alam's portion "collapsed itself."
Justice Budhwar found this collective denial incredible, highlighting the admission by the District Magistrate:
"It is quite paradoxical and amazing that though on , according to the applicant, demolition exercise stood undertaken, but in the of the opposite party no. 2 in para 14, the presence of the opposite party no. 2 is not being disputed rather admitted that he was standing there on and analogy has been drawn that in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the area during demolition, the officers are present."
What's Next?
The court directed Javed Alam to file a response to all three affidavits. The matter has been listed for further hearing on , at 2:00 PM in the additional cause list. The core question remains: who actually demolished the house, and will the authorities be held in contempt for violating the order?
