Khargone Demolition Drive: MP High Court Orders Status Quo On Partly Demolished Property Of Tent House Owner

Granting two weeks' time to the authorities to seek instructions and file their reply, Justice Pranay Verma held-

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks time for seeking instructions in the matter and for filing the reply. Till next date of hearing, status-quo with respect to the property in question shall be maintained by the parties.

The case of the Petitioner was that the State authorities had demolished a part of his property owing to a vendetta against him for belonging to a particular community. He submitted that he was the legal owner of the said property and had been paying taxes for the same. He argued that the authorities were being judge, jury and executioner by acting arbitrarily and illegally against him and demolishing his property.

The Petitioner asserted that the action of the State authorities was a part of the demolition drive initiated by them after the communal clashes at Khargone in April as his property was demolished a day after the incident. He further pointed out the statement made by the State Home Minister, whereby the Minister had put the blame on the Muslim community for wreaking violence over the city during the riots.

Through the writ petition, the Petitioner prayed for directions of the Court to prohibit the authorities from taking any extra-judicial steps of demolishing houses and shops as punishment for a criminal act. He further sought for a judicial enquiry against the State authorities for their actions. He also sought for directions of the Court to the authorities to compensate the Petitioner for his loss as well as other similarly situated persons who have suffered loss as a result of joblessness and homelessness due to the actions of the respondents authorities. Lastly, he prayed for directions of the Court to restrict the Ministers, legislators and other responsible authorities endorsing "illegal acts of demolition" as punitive measures and issuing public statements.

The Petitioner submitted before the Court that the authorities demolished a part of his property without issuing any notice or giving him any opportunity of hearing. He argued that this act of the State was in total violation of the principles of natural justice. As a result, he concluded, the actions of the State have violated his fundamental rights.

Case Title : JAHID ALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Click Here To Read/Download Order