Demolition Presumed To Be Punitive When Property Is Selectively Chosen Suddenly After Occupant Is Accused Of Crime : Supreme Court
In its judgment on bulldozer actions, the Supreme Court has significantly observed that if a particular structure is chosen suddenly for demolition, while other similarly situated structures in the same vicinity are not even touched, State malafide may loom large. Where it is established that selection of a property (for demolition) was arbitrary, and soon before initiation of action, an...
In its judgment on bulldozer actions, the Supreme Court has significantly observed that if a particular structure is chosen suddenly for demolition, while other similarly situated structures in the same vicinity are not even touched, State malafide may loom large. Where it is established that selection of a property (for demolition) was arbitrary, and soon before initiation of action, an occupant of the property was found involved in a criminal case, it can be presumed that the real motive of the authorities behind demolition was punitive action without trial.
"when a particular structure is chosen all of a sudden for demolition and the rest of the similarly situated structures in the same vicinity are not even being touched, mala fide may loom large. In such cases, where the authorities indulge into arbitrary pick and choose of the structures and it is established that soon before initiation of such an action an occupant of the structure was found to be involved in a criminal case, a presumption could be drawn that the real motive for such demolition proceedings was not the illegal structure but an action of penalizing the accused without even trying him before the court of law," said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
The Court made the observation while dealing with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's contention that properties sought to be demolished for breach of local municipal laws can happen to belong to persons accused of crimes, out of sheer coincidence. As against this, the petitioners had contended that the chain of events in the cited incidents would show that demolition of houses was an immediate consequence of persons being implicated in crimes.
Addressing this issue, the Court held that a presumption can be drawn regarding motives of the State if the property sought to be demolished is established to have been selected arbitrarily. The presumption would be rebuttable and the authorities will have to satisfy the court that they did not intend to penalize a person accused by demolishing the structure.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case)
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884