'Approach HC': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Contempt Petition Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Accused Persons' Houses In Gujarat

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a petition assailing demolition action stated to have been carried out by Ahmedabad authorities against houses of persons accused of crimes in violation of the Court's November 13 judgment.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, asking the petitioner, who claimed that the authorities were guilty of contempt of Court, to approach the Gujarat High Court for relief.

Referring to other petitions filed seeking similar relief (which were also disposed of while asking the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Courts), the bench expressed that it would be difficult for it to monitor all such cases across the country. In the context of one matter where the Court has agreed to consider the issues, Justice Gavai indicated that the Court may "lay down something".

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the petitioner, acceded to what was falling from the Court, but prayed that there may be a direction to the High Court for expeditious disposal. Considering, the bench added in its order that the High Court dispose of the petitioner's case expeditiously.

"We are not inclined to entertain the present petition in this Court. We, however, permit the petitioner to approach the High Court in pursuance of our directions...we request the High Court that in the event the petitioner approaches the High Court, the grievance of the petitioner shall be attended expeditiously", the Court ordered.

Briefly put, the present PIL was filed claiming that houses of persons accused in a crime were razed by Ahmedabad authorities without following the procedure prescribed under law. The action was taken without following mandatory guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its November 13 judgment, the petitioner said.

Supreme Court judgment alleged to have been violated

On November 13, the Supreme Court held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime. A set of guidelines - to be followed before demolition - were issued by the Court. These included -

(i) No demolition should be carried out without prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided in the local municipal laws or within 15 days time from the date of service, whichever is later.

(ii) Designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the aggrieved party. The minutes of such a hearing shall be recorded. The final order of authority shall contain contentions of noticee, the findings of the authority and reasons, as to whether the unauthorized construction is compoundable, and whether the whole construction is to be demolished. The order should specify why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available.

(iii) After the orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before the appropriate forum.

The Court also held that violation of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to prosecution. If a demolition is found to be in violation of the orders of the Court, the officers responsible will be held liable for restitution of the demolished property at their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.

Further, the Court clarified that that the directions would not be applicable if the unauthorized structure was in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway lines or any river body or water body and also in cases where there is an order passed by a Court of law.

What did the contempt petition say?

As per claims, the criminal case registered against the persons whose houses were demolished originated from a brawl in last December, after a group allegedly questioned and attacked a local photographer, Saddamuddin Sheikh, and his cousin Sohail, demanding information about his brother Salman, a convict who absconded after jumping parole. Following the incident, an FIR was lodged at Bapunagar Police Station under provisions of the IPC, the Gujarat Police Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, 1984.

On 20.12.2024, the petitioner claimed, the Bapunagar Municipal Councilor wrote a letter to the Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, highlighting the incident and demanding removal of the constructions owned by the accused individuals to teach a lesson to them. The next day, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in a joint operation with Ahmedabad Police demolished the houses of the accused persons "in a drive aimed to remove encroachments by 'antisocial elements' in these areas".

The PIL mentioned that no notice was issued to the house-owners/residents prior to the demolition of their houses.  

The petition was filed through AoR Paras Nath Singh.

Case Title: MUJAHID NAFEES Versus PANKAJ JOSHI AND ORS., Diary No. 6547-2025