Reports of violence-demolition in Bahraich | State must abide by law and ensure actions are not taken selectively: Allahabad HC tells government verbally

“I know that the state has many responsibilities to maintain peace and tranquility, but please ensure that things are not done selectively. There must be checks and balances. The purpose of securing peace is one thing; the purpose of the demolition is a different purpose. Please do not do anything that is not in accordance with the law”: Judge Attau Rehman Masoodi told verbally Additional Solicitor General VK Shahi.

The oral observation took place during the treatment a plea for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). moved by the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (through its Vice President, UP East, Sayed Mehfuzur Rehman) challenging the proposed action of the Uttar Pradesh government to demolish properties of the accused in the Bahraich violence case.

A bench of Justice Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also added that before any demolition is undertaken, proper survey and demarcation should be carried out in accordance with relevant rules and laws.

Allahabad HC narrates @UPGovt verbally (on the issue of issuance of #Demolition communications): When you propose to demolish a structure, you may not do so selectively. The state must abide by the law and ensure that the law is followed at every step.

While hearing the matter today, the division bench noted that the State’s defense against the PIL plea was missing from the record and therefore, the Court, while posting the matter for next week, asked the UP government to respond specifically on the following three aspects of the case:

• Has an investigation and demarcation been carried out in accordance with the relevant law before notices have been issued to private citizens?
• Whether the state has conducted an investigation to determine whether the people to whom notices were served are the real owners of the property or whether some of them are merely tenants.
• Whether the notices have been issued by the competent authorities.

Justice Masoodi also noted that the court could adopt this so cool to pay attention to the issue of civil liberties, and eliminate busy agencies that play with the people’s feelings, but it was also the duty of the state to obey the law.

Justice Masoodi also added that you cannot just go on the road, be a nuisance and then seek protection. “That’s not possible either” he said.

In this backdrop, the Court, while posting the matter for next week, has asked the State counsel to ensure in the meantime that nothing is done contrary to law.

“We must all ensure that the law is complied with in letter and spirit”, said the Court.

It may be noted that last month, during an extraordinary hearing on Sunday, the Court took note of the UP government’s PWDept notice issued to residents without indicating the number of houses located on the border. kilometer 38 of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road, which have been duly approved for construction.

“…what piques the consciousness of this court is the issuance of notices to file the reply within a short span of three days. The number of houses located at kilometer 38, of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road, has been duly cleared for construction, also does not reveal much from the message that may need clarification.‘ the Court had noted.

While the court had not EXPLICITLY stayed the demolition in its order, it had observed that it had no reason to believe that the UP government would not comply with the Supreme Court’s order on demolition in letter and spirit.

Importantly, the state government has taken the position that the buildings/houses of those to whom notices have been issued by the PW department have been constructed in violation of Rule 7 of the UP Roadside Land Control Rules 1964.

Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules states that buildings may not be built within building lines, i.e. within the distances from the center line of any Major District Roads (MDR), which are 18 meters for open and agricultural areas and 14 meters for urban and industrial areas.

The state government has enforced that any structure raised within the prescribed distance from the center of the Major District Road (MDR). is illegal and susceptible to demolition.

The State Government further contends (as pleaded in its counter affidavit) that the area around kilometer 38 of the Kundasar-Mahsi-Nanpara Road is prone to accidents because ongoing construction has turned a previously straight road into a sharp bend.

Thus, on October 16, 2024, a 14-member committee was constituted to inspect and demarcate the affected areas on the said roads. During the inspection, the commission found that the “S” curve near mile 38 was caused by construction too close to the road, affecting visibility and contributing to frequent accidents.

The inspection report identified 24 such buildings violating the provisions of Rule 7. On this basis, notices were issued to the 23 persons listed in the inspection report. The state government claims that the PW department has also confirmed that no building permissions have been granted for construction in the notified area.

The Bahraich Incident

For the uninitiated, communal violence broke out in the Maharajganj/Mehsi area of ​​District Bahraich after some local members of a certain community objected to the playing of loud music. The altercation further resulted in the death of a 22-year-old man named Ram Gopal Mishra.

Reportedly, Mishra climbed atop the roof of the house of a person from a particular community and removed/torn a green flag (usually associated with Islam) and started waving a saffron flag while the persons part of the procession shouted slogans from “Jai”. Shri Ram” and “Jai Bajrang Bali”.

Soon after, Mishra was shot by someone and died. As a result, individuals carrying sticks and iron bars protested and set fire to shops, vehicles and private properties associated with a particular community.

The violence lasted for about two days and internet services were suspended for four days.

Advocate Saurabh Shankar Srivastava appeared for the petitioner.