New Delhi
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday restrained the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) from carrying out any demolition action until Wednesday, at a house belonging to the mother of a man accused of murdering a 26-year-old man during a fight between two families at Uttam Nagar on Holi. The order was also extended to the house of another woman, whose two sons were questioned by the police.
A bench of justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court directed the MCD not to take any action until the court hears the petitions filed by the two women, Shahnaz and Jarina, seeking directions to the civic body not to demolish their houses without following due process of law. While Shahnaz’s two sons, aged 14, were questioned, Jarina’s son, Imran, was named an accused in the FIR.
“Tell them (MCD) that between today 4:00 PM and tomorrow 10:30 (when the court will hear the petitions) nothing should happen. List tomorrow,” justice Bansal told MCD’s lawyer.
The court passed the order when the MCD’s lawyer urged the court to hear the petitions on Wednesday.
The clash between the two families started around 10.30pm on March 4, as an 11-year-old girl threw a water balloon from the terrace of her house, which hit a woman from another community. This escalated into a fight between the two families and resulted in injuries to eight people from both sides. Of them, 26-year-old Tarun Kumar succumbed to his injuries. On March 5, the police registered FIR under sections 110/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and on March 8, the MCD bulldozed a portion of a four-storey building belonging to one of the accused.
In her petition, filed through advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh, Jarina alleged she could also face similar action. She contended that such action could be taken as a punitive measure, merely because her family members had been implicated in the criminal case. She submitted that members of the public had broken the doors and locks of her house, which has heightened her apprehension that the property might be subjected to demolition.
“The demolition of house of accused Umardeep carried out by the municipal authorities has created an atmosphere of terror and insecurity in the locality, giving rise to a genuine apprehension that the house of the Petitioner may also be demolished without following due process of law. The petitioner has also been informed by the neighbours that locks and doors of certain houses have been broken, further strengthening the apprehension of imminent demolition,” Jarina’s petition stated.
In her petition, Shehnaz said that her house neighboured Umardeep’s residence and that the demolition carried out by the authorities has created an atmosphere of fear and insecurity in the locality. She said this has led to a genuine apprehension that her house could also be demolished without due process of law.
She further submitted that the Supreme Court of India, in a 2024 judgment, clearly held that demolition actions cannot be undertaken without following due procedure, including issuing prior notice, providing an opportunity to be heard, and complying with statutory requirements such as giving a minimum of 15 days’ notice to the affected party.
