Back
flags misuse of Disaster Management Act in Goalpara demolitions
The has observed that the Assam administration misused the when it demolished 21 dwelling houses on private agricultural land in Goalpara district earlier this month. Justice Devashis Baruah, hearing a by the affected residents, found that the authorities failed to demonstrate any “” that could justify such drastic action.
No Found
The case arose after the Circle Officer of issued notices on , directing the landowners to demolish their homes within 24 hours. The houses were subsequently razed in the early hours of . Twenty-one residents—all Muslims—challenged the notices, arguing they were not given a fair opportunity to be heard before the demolition.
In an order passed on , Justice Baruah reviewed the instructions placed before the court by the State’s counsel, including an enquiry report dated , the District Commissioner’s order of , and para-wise comments from . The court noted that these documents “ do not show that there was a case of for taking such drastic actions of demolishing houses on private lands .”
Court Questions Use of Disaster Management Law
The court further observed that the action appeared to be a misuse of the . “ Rather, it also appears to be a misuse of the ,” the judge stated.
The High Court also referred to the , under which permission from the deputy commissioner is not required when agricultural land measuring up to one bigha is used for constructing the owner’s own dwelling house, provided the structure does not exceed two storeys. The notices themselves indicated that the land parcels were patta land belonging to the petitioners.
Opportunity for Authorities to Explain
The court granted an opportunity to the District Commissioner and the Circle Officer to file independent affidavits explaining the proceedings. It also took on record an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners containing photographs of the demolition and details of the losses suffered.
Justice Baruah directed the respondents to respond to the additional affidavit, noting that the court would adjudicate on the question of compensation “ in the circumstance this Court holds that the action so taken by the Respondents … were .”
Next Hearing Set for October
The passed earlier—directing that no further action be taken on the petitioners’ lands—was continued until the next date of hearing, scheduled for . The court’s observations remain preliminary, and the legality of the demolitions will be determined after the authorities file their responses.
