Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, K.V.VISWANATHAN
Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. order condoning delay in filing. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners faced demolition before appeals resolved. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 3. court emphasizes compensation for unlawful demolition. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER
1. Delay in filing spare copies is condoned.
2. Aggrieved by the High Court’s directions issued in purported exercise of PIL jurisdiction, thereby ordering the demolition of the houses/buildings constructed by the petitioners allegedly on public land, they have approached this Court through the instant special leave petition. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the High Court had issued the directions in a tearing hurry, when statutory appeals against the eviction orders, were still pending. It was against this backdrop that the following order was passed on 22.03.2024:
“1. Issue notice, returnable on 17.05.2024.
2. Meanwhile, pending the statutory appeal, the parties are directed to maintain status quo re:demolition and further construction at the site.
3. The Appellate Authority-cum-District Magistrate, Patna is directed to decide the pending appeal in accordance with law within six weeks and submit a compliance report to the High Court.”
3. It is stated and not di
Authorities must abide by interim judicial orders, and failure to do so results in liability for compensation for damages caused by wrongful acts.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
Breach of undertakings given to the court undermines judicial authority, leading to dismissal of petitions aimed at stalling enforcement of demolition orders.
Right to be heard is fundamental before state action affecting property rights.
Due process must be followed in property demolition orders under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act.
The court highlighted the urgency of resolving stay applications in demolition cases, stressing that such requests must be expedited to prevent irreparable harm.
The court emphasized the need for prompt judicial handling of stay applications in demolition cases to avoid irreversible harm to property, highlighting the urgency of such matters.
The High Court must operate based on established facts, and assumptions in issuing orders can lead to procedural injustices; parties must have the opportunity for a fair hearing.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper adjudication and the presence of counter affidavits before vacating a status quo order regarding property demolition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
