‘We are a welfare state’: Uttarakhand HC stays demolition of slums in Dehradun
Hearing an urgent matter, the Uttarakhand High Court on Saturday stayed an ongoing drive to free water bodies and seasonal streams of encroachments in Dehradun, saying arbitrary action under the cover of court orders will not be allowed.
During the last hearing, the court had asked the state to install CCTV cameras and the DGP to inform the SHOs in the respective area to take action against those dumping debris into water bodies. The matter was listed on April 15. However, on April 5, the administration started the serving notices to residents in slums in Vikasnagar, and demolitions were initiated later, prompting an urgent hearing.
Chief Justice G Narender said that the state should have sent notices, conducted a survey, and proceeded. “All this is done to force the court to tie its own hands. We won’t appreciate this conduct from the officials,” he said.
Three PILs had flagged encroachments on water bodies and drains in Rajpur, Doon Valley. Another petition flagged private encroachments on a rivulet and prayed that the seasonal streams in Sahastradhara should be freed of encroachment.
An intervenor was filed by and on behalf of the villagers from Vikasnagar on Friday. On April 5, they received a notice stating that their properties were ordered to be “demolished as they were built on water bodies”. The intervenor said the applicants would file property documents showing ownership as per the government records by April 15. “That now all of a sudden, the administration has started taking action against the properties without giving them an opportunity to being heard and verify their documents of title of the properties, which is completely in contravention to judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj Tibrewal Aakash case and hence as per the same chance may be afforded to applicants to be heard on their part. That the respondent administration has started taking coercive action against the applicants which is against the principle of natural justice,” it said. It prayed for a stay on demolitions and asked for an urgent hearing.
The court was apprised that the site was granted in a housing scheme and over 100 houses have been granted under the Indira Awas Yojana and PM Awas Yojana. “If sites have been allotted under these schemes, then how do you justify your demolition? We will not burden the state exchequer; we will make the officers responsible and they will pay from their pockets. We will not allow such arbitrary actions under the cover of court orders. There is a due process, and you have to complete the due process. What were you doing all these days? Why suddenly on the weekend (demolition)? Sham action, let the court pass the stay order and we will sit ‘aram se’. If we find that they have not acted with a clean hand, they will have to pay the price,” the Chief Justice said.
Further, the court asked how the site was granted if they were in river beds. “We are a welfare state, you admit the sites are allotted to them by the state, who allotted the sites in the riverbed? Who is responsible for that? Don’t take any coercive action till April 15, convince the court and then proceed,” the court said.
Story continues below this ad
The counsel for the petitioner in the original case, Abhijay Negi, said that the only urgency the petitioner had raised before the court through a supplementary affidavit was pointing out that two streams were being filled up with sand. “In the compliance report filed by the state, in these two sites, the river is being filled, and no one’s house is there…” he said.
Reading out the compliance report of the state, Negi said, “Construction work is being carried out… and in a land in the form of a drain in which various people have purchased land and constructed buildings. The complex built by Mr Makin has been extended from the main road towards the drain. Mr Makin has not presented any documents in relation to this. River flows in (a patch), the entire land is non-za (ZA Act) land which is said to have been purchased by Mr Rajeev Jain. No documents were purchased by Mr Rajeev Jain at the site and a concrete bridge is being constructed adjacent to the river on the spot for which no letter regarding permission has been submitted by Mr Jain. The construction work of the bridge has been stopped by us (the state),” he said.
To this, the CJ said, “These kinds of activities you are not stopping… If they are privately building a bridge, demolish it immediately. Ask for a sanction plan. To build it across the drain, what right do they have?”
