The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on Tuesday informed the Delhi High Court that it will not carry out demolition of unauthorised constructions in certain houses linked to an Uttam Nagar clash without issuing prior notice. Recording this assurance, the court closed petitions filed by residents who feared immediate demolition of their homes.
The statement was made before Justice Amit Bansal during hearings on petitions filed by Jarina, mother of one of the accused, and Shahnaz, whose children were questioned by police in connection with the incident. The petitioners had approached the court apprehending that their residential premises could be demolished without due process.
Taking note of the MCD’s stand, the court disposed of the matter. As recorded in the order, senior advocate Sanjay Poddar, appearing for the civic body, stated that no action would be taken against the properties in question without issuing notice. He further submitted that any action would be carried out in accordance with the Supreme Court’s rulings governing demolitions.
The assurance, however, was clarified to be limited to the specific residential premises involved in the present case.
Background of the Dispute
The petitions arose after tensions escalated following a clash between two neighbouring families in Uttam Nagar on March 4 during Holi celebrations. The incident resulted in the death of a 26-year-old man. Several individuals, including a minor, were apprehended in connection with the case.
On March 8, the MCD demolished a portion of a house belonging to the family of one of the accused, stating that it had been constructed over a public drain. This action triggered concerns among other residents in the area.
Earlier, on March 11, the High Court had granted interim protection to the petitioners’ homes for one week and directed them to file fresh pleas detailing their grievances.
The petitioners argued that there was a real apprehension of “arbitrary and illegal” demolition of their houses in JJ Colony, Uttam Nagar, without following due process. Jarina, in particular, contended that the earlier demolition created an atmosphere of fear and insecurity in the locality.
They submitted that demolition cannot be used as a punitive measure in criminal cases and must follow legal safeguards, including issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Earlier, the MCD had maintained that the demolition drive in the area was not selective and was aimed at removing encroachments over a public drain. It had also argued that the law did not mandate prior notice in such cases.
The court was informed that only certain portions of the houses had been demolished.
With the MCD now undertaking to issue prior notice before any further action against the petitioners’ homes, the High Court brought the proceedings to a close.
