Bahrain Violence | ‘Demolition of any ‘Illegal’ Construction is Responsible’: UP Government Orders Supreme Court to Issue Notice to ‘Violators’

The affidavit also states that the proposed action is in the interest of the public residing in the vicinity and those using the Main Regional Road for transportation.

Declaration submitted by Chief Engineer Devi Patan (Gonda) PWD Awadhesh Sharma Chaurasia The lawsuit was filed on October 25 October 20 of HC^This order to the state government to indicate the number of maps approved for construction along the road in question.

order We passed a bench. Justice Attau Rehman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi While dealing with a PIL plea filed by Civil Rights Protection Association The action proposed by the UP government to demolish the properties belonging to the accused person was objected to.

The affidavit submitted by the state government claims that the buildings/houses of the ‘encroachers’ were issued notices by the Public Works Department as they were constructed illegally. Rule 7 of UP Roadside Land Control Rules 1964.

It may be noted here that the said PWD notifications state that the constructions are “illegal” and not allowed as they are constructed 60 meters away from the center point of the road in rural areas.

For context, Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules states that there are buildings will not be built within building lines, i.e., within 60 feet for open and agricultural areas and 45 feet for urban and industrial areas from the center line of any Major Regional Road (MDR).

The affidavit categorically states that the road in question (where illegal constructions allegedly brought up by “encroachers”) was initially notified as Other Regional Road (ODR), but in June 2021, it was reclassified as Main Regional Road (MDR), Uttar Under Section 3 of the Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1945.

The state government has maintained that any construction built within the specified distance from the center of the Main Regional Road (MDR) should be carried out. is illegal and must be demolished.

“It is pertinent to mention here that in case of any illegal construction activity or any construction carried out in violation of the provisions of the law, it will be dealt with by the opposite parties in accordance with the law and only if the said notice is given to the concerned party. The 23 people involved are just a preliminary process where these people should be given the opportunityThe statement confirms this.

The state government also stated (as stated in its counter-affidavit) that the surrounding area 38th kilometer of Kundasar-Mahsi-Nanpara Road The ongoing construction is prone to accidents as it turns the previously straight road into a sharp bend.

Thus, on October 16, 2024, a 14-member committee was formed to inspect the violated areas on the roads in question and determine their boundaries. During the inspection, the committee found that the “S” curve near the 38th kilometer was caused by construction too close to the road, which reduced visibility and caused frequent accidents.

The inspection report identified 24 buildings that violated the provisions of Rule 7. Thereupon, a notification was made to 23 people mentioned in the audit report. The State Government claims that the PW Department has also confirmed that no permission has been issued for construction in the notified area.

Importantly, the affidavit also contains a letter from the relevant authority, Roadside Land Control Act (written to the Executive Engineer, PWD); This letter states that no permission for construction has been obtained from the Bahraich District Magistrate’s office. Any building within km. 38th of Kundasar Mahsi Nanpara (MDR).

Response to sustainability of PIL plea

The State Government’s affidavit also challenges the maintainability of the PIL plea on the ground that the association has failed to furnish its credentials as required by Rule 3 A of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court rules.

In its response statement submitted yesterday (represented by Lawyer Saurabh Shankar Srivastava) He identified various Public Interest Litigations that he filed citing ‘real’ reasons for the ‘betterment of Society’ in general.

The response also states that the state government “shamelessly” defended and justified its “illegal” action marked by “extreme discrimination against a particular community”, taking a punitive approach aimed at administering retributive justice beyond the purview of law.

In its response, the association claimed that demolition notices were pasted on the properties, knowing full well that in this case, the orders in question would neither be delivered to the property owners nor would they come to present their answers. many fled and abandoned their property due to fear of malicious prosecution.

In the notifications given to the alleged violators, it may be stated that the construction was carried out with the permission of the Regional Criminal Court of Peace. bahrain or in the case of prior departmental approval, the original copy of such permission must be provided immediately.

In addition, in the announcements, the residents are asked to remove the ‘illegal’ construction within three days, and it is stated that failure to do so will result in the authorities removing the construction with the help of the police and administration, and the costs incurred for the removal will be 200 million TL. recovered through revenue transactions.

on October 20^ThisSupreme Court elongated 3 day period up to 15 days (to respond to notifications).

The Court heard the case on November 6 asked orally the Government of Uttar Pradesh to make sure nothing gets done selectively According to demolition announcements.

“I know that the state has many responsibilities in ensuring peace and tranquility, but please ensure that things are not done selectively. There needs to be checks and balances. The goal of achieving peace is one thing; The purpose of destruction is different… please do not do anything illegal”: Judge Attau Rehman Masoodi verbally told Additional Advocate General VK Shahi.

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

The division bench noted that the state’s reply against the PIL plea was missing from the file and therefore posting the matter to next week, the Court asked the UP Government to specifically respond to the following three aspects of the matter:

• Have research and restrictions been carried out in accordance with the relevant law before notification to private citizens?
• Whether the state conducted an investigation to determine whether the persons to whom the notice was given were the actual owners of the property or part tenants.
• Whether notifications are made by the relevant authorities.

The issue will now be discussed on November 11.