New Delhi: Days after criticising "bulldozer justice", the Supreme Court on Thursday said alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of property and stressed that it would be equivalent to running a bulldozer over the laws of the land.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S V N Bhatti, said: "In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property".
"Moreover, the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a court of law. The court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise, such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land," said the bench.
The apex court passed the order on a plea by Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed against the Gujarat government and Kathlal Nagarpalika. Senior advocate Iqbal Syed appeared for the petitioner before the top court.
The counsel referred to the revenue records of Village Kathlal in Kheda District to point out that the petitioner is recorded as a co-owner of the said land. The counsel also referred to the resolution passed on August 21, 2004, of the Kathlal gram panchayat, which granted permission to build residential house numbers 26 and 48, over the said land.
"It is then submitted that three generations of the petitioner’s family have been residing in the said houses for the last about two decades. Yet, when the FIR came to be registered on 01.09.2024 against one family member, the municipal authorities have threatened to bulldoze the petitioner's family home," noted the bench, in its order.
The bench also noted that the petitioner referred to the complaint under Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 addressed to the Deputy SP, Nadiad, Kheda District on September 6, 2024, describing the situation and making it clear that the law should take its own course against the person accused of the crime.
The petitioner said the Nagarpalika or others in the shadow of the Nagarpalika, should have no reason to either threaten or to take any steps such as using bulldozers, to demolish the legally constructed and legally occupied house/residence of the petitioner.
"The counsel would also refer to the orders passed by this court on September 2, 2024,…..which indicates that for similar threats of bulldozing the residences of the accused of crimes, the court proposes to take PAN-India action," noted the bench, in its order.
The apex court issued notice on the plea and made it returnable in four weeks. "In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner's property is to be maintained by all concerned," it said.
On September 2, the Supreme Court had said it would lay down guidelines on a pan-India basis while criticising the "bulldozer justice". The top court questioned how a house can be demolished just because it belongs to an accused in a criminal case.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan stressed that the process has to be streamlined and added that a pious father may have a recalcitrant son or vice versa and both should not be made to suffer each other's consequences. The apex court stressed that immovable properties can be demolished only based on procedure.
