Back
: Mere Allegations of Cannot Justify Halting Construction
The has made it clear that the State cannot halt construction on a property solely based on unsubstantiated claims of it being evacuee or . A of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran allowed a filed by Smt. Prem Goel and others, restraining the respondents from interfering with the and construction on a plot in Muzaffarnagar.
A Decade-Long Title and Repeated Complaints
The dispute concerns 90 square meters of land in Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar, part of Khasra No. 834. The petitioners traced their title back to an registered on , executed by Nawab Mohammad Sadakkat Ali Khan in favor of the . Through a and a will, the property eventually devolved to the petitioners, who obtained a from the on for a commercial complex.
However, three separate complaints—filed by one Rewati Nandan, allegedly at the behest of a former tenant Narendra Arora—claimed the land was . Each complaint was investigated and rejected: by the on , by the Development Authority on , and finally by the on . Despite these clearances, on , state officials forcibly stopped construction and, days later, partially demolished the structure, marking the property as “” on the walls.
State’s Unsupported Assertions vs. Official Records
The State argued that since Nawab Mohammad Sadakkat Ali Khan had migrated to Pakistan after partition, the property should be treated as either under the , or under the . However, the court noted that the Assistant Custodian’s order of explicitly stated that the remaining land of the concerned khasra numbers was not . Moreover, the respondents themselves admitted in their that the property was not recorded as .
On the claim, the court observed that the State had produced no document showing that the property was ever registered as , nor any evidence of pending proceedings. The only reference was a passing mention in a letter dated . The court emphasized that under , the for transfers was , and barred any declaration of after . Furthermore, required annual publication of a list of , which the State failed to produce.
Court’s Key Observations
“Since the respondents State has not brought on record any such document, which would refer the property in question either registered as an or any such proceedings are still pending for its registration etc., would not suffice and the action of the State respondents for stopping the constructions work on the land in question, where the map has been sanctioned, cannot be justified.”
The court also highlighted that the had already concluded that the land was not , rendering the State’s reliance on earlier communications misplaced.
Decision and Implications
The High Court allowed the petition, issuing a restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners’ and occupation of the property, limited to the area covered by the . The ruling reinforces the principle that the State cannot act on mere allegations without documented proof, especially when official authorities have repeatedly cleared the property. It also underscores the importance of adhering to under the evacuee and laws before taking coercive action against property owners.
