Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 9664
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ
JAVEDALI MAHEBUBMIYA SAIYED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 41707/2024
Mr. Iqbal Syed, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mohammad Aslam, AOR, Saroj Kumar Sinha, Adv., Mr. V. Bhandari, Adv., Mr. Amaan Syed, Adv., Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv.
Allegations against one family member do not justify the demolition of legally constructed property of others, emphasizing the rule of law.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 333 - Threat of demolition of legally constructed residence - The petitioner, a co-owner of land, faced threats of demolition from municipal authorities following an FIR against a family member. The court emphasized that actions against one family member cannot affect the legally constructed properties of others, reaffirming the principle of rule of law. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Rule of Law - The court reiterated that alleged involvement in crime does not justify the demolition of property without due legal process. (Paras 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been residing in the houses built on the land for two decades, with a resolution from the Gram Panchayat permitting construction. Following an FIR against a family member, threats of demolition were made by municipal authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered that status quo regarding the petitioner's property be maintained and issued notice returnable in four weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the actions of the municipal authorities to threaten demolition were lawful given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rule of law must prevail, and actions against one family member cannot justify the demolition of another's legally constructed residence.
Result: Notice issued, status quo maintained.
O R D E R
1. Heard Mr. Iqbal Syed, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The counsel would refer to the revenue records of Village Kathlal in Kheda District (Annexure P/1) to point out that the petitioner is recorded as a co-owner of the said land. The counsel next refers to the resolution passed on 21.08.2004 of the Kathlal Gram Panchayat which grants permission to build residential house Nos. 26 and 48, over the said land. It is then submitted that 3 generations of the petitioner’s family are residing in the said houses for last about 2 decades.
3. Yet, when the FIR came to be registered on 01.09.2024 against one family member, the municipal authorities have threatened to bulldoze the petitioner’s family home.
4. The petitioner refers to the complaint under Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 addressed to the Deputy SP, Nadiad, Kheda District on 06.09.2024 describing the situation and making it clear that law should take its own course against the person accused of crime. But, the Nagar Palika or others in the shadow of the Nagar Palika, should have no reason to either threaten or to take any steps such as using bulldozer, to demolish the legally constructed and legally occupied house/residence of the petitioner. The counsel would also refer to the orders passed by this Court on 02.09.2024 in the WP(C) No. 295 of 2022 which indicates that for similar threats of bulldozing the residences of accused of crimes, the Court proposes to take PAN-India action.
5. In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. Moreover the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a Court of law. The Court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land.
6. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
7. In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner’s property is to be maintained by all concerned.
