Demolition After Khargone Riots: Madhya Pradesh High Court Issues Notice To State On Resident's Plea

Hearing the submissions of the parties, Justice Pranay Verma directed the authorities concerned to file their reply within 4 weeks.

The case made out by the Petitioner in his petition was that the State authorities had demolished 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 Khargone riots as his property was demolished two days 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 a judicial enquiry against the State authorities for their alleged illegal action. He further sought for directions of the Court to the authorities to compensate the Petitioner for his loss as well as his employees who were rendered unemployed after the demolition of his property/restaurant.

The Petitioner submitted before the Court that he was the legal owner of the demolished property and has been paying taxes for the same. He further submitted before the Court that the authorities demolished a part of his property without issuing any notice to him and or affording 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.

Per contra, the State submitted before the Court that due process of law had been followed in the matter of demolition of property of the Petitioner. It was also argued that only that part of his property had been demolished which could not have been compounded under the provisions of law. The State assured the Court that for the remaining part of the property of the Petitioner, no action of demolition would be carried out without following due process of law.

Case Title: ATEEQ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS