Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed against a demolition order dated 15-12-2023, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (‘1973 Act’) have been dismissed, Pankaj Bhatia, J. while staying the demolition order till the next date of listing, directed that no demolition to be carried out in the entire area. The Lucknow Development Authority (‘LDA’) was directed to give four weeks to the inhabitants to apply in terms of the scheme and the inhabitants would be at liberty to apply in terms of the scheme within a reasonable time. It also directed the LDA to take steps for resettlement of the persons who have applied in terms of the scheme and obtain vacant physical possession of the present premises in their occupation.
The petitioners claimed to be in possession of property known as Akbar Nagar for more than forty to fifty years without any interference. However, the Zonal officer passed an order, holding that the occupation was illegal and on a green belt area, which was liable to be demolished. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in terms of the mandate of Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act, which was dismissed. Thus, the present petition was filed.
The Court noted that various persons including the petitioners are in occupation of the land without having any title in their favour; with the passage of time, the said persons have continued in possession and in fact, government roads were carved out and other municipal services are being provided; in some cases, even the municipal taxes are being paid. A school was also being run in the vicinity.
It further noted that LDA has initiated the process of relocating various persons in terms of their scheme and in fact, a camp has been set up wherein around 70 to 80 people have enrolled and registered themselves for being relocated at other places, in terms of the scheme.
The Court said that it is no doubt that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any prima-facie title in their favor, but have successfully established their possession, even if the said possession is an illegal possession.
Further, it said that it is unclear what is the tearing hurry in which huge occupations by the relatively poor class of persons are being proposed to be demolished forthwith, without even waiting for the scheme of relocating the adversely affected persons being implemented in letter and spirit and also exposing the poorest of the poor to the ensuing harsh winters.
The Court said that prima-facie, the rights are flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to earn livelihood, is prima-facie affected and it is the bounden duty of the State and its instrumentalities to ensure that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not violated to give effect to the other obligations of the State which includes the obligation to resettle and which is also being discharged by the LDA.
The matter will next be taken up on 22-01-2024 for further directions and a decision on the issues as raised.
[Syed Hamidul Bari v State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2777, Order dated 21-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Kazim Ibrahim, Advocate Amrit Khare
Counsel for Respondent: Chief standing counsel Ratnesh Chandra
Buy Constitution of India HERE
