Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: June 17, 2022 at 15:55 IST
The Prayagraj Improvement Authority’s decision to demolish the home of Mohammad Javed, a political activist and businessman, on June 12 after only a day’s notice to vacate, is against a 2020 ruling of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket that directed Uttar Pradesh authorities to allow a 30-day window from issuing a discover to the property proprietor.
In Abbas Ansari And One other versus State Of Uttar Pradesh Justices Shashi Kant Gupta, Pankaj Bhatia in October 15, 2020 had mentioned, “The State authorities, the place ever demolition orders are handed in respect of constructions raised on the non-public properties underneath the 2 acts, ought to wait from taking any motion for precise demolition until the statutory interval of attraction involves an finish.”
The ruling refers to two legislation: the Uttar Pradesh City Planning and Improvement Act of 1973 and the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Construction Operations) Act of 1958. The state has not followed the instructions in the case. There is a clear violation of legislation in taking action earlier than 30 days of serving the discover, Justice Govind Mathur said, then-Chairman of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket, instructed The Indian Categorical.
On June 12, the Prayagraj Improvement Authority invoked Part 27 of the Uttar Pradesh City Planning and Improvement Act, 1973, to demolish Javed’s home with only a day’s notice to vacate. The provision empowers municipal authorities to order the demolition of a structure if it is found to be in contravention of the masterplan or without the required permission or approval under law.