The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on 'bulldozer action' and said that alleged involvement in a crime is no ground fo♚r demolition of properties.
The top court ordered a Gujarat civic body to maintain status quo and not threat🔴en bulldozer action on the house of an accus𒁏ed in a criminal case.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti obser♍ved that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a country where law is held to be supreme. The apex court said that it cannot be oblivious to such actions which may be seen as "running a bulldozer over the laws of the land".
The bench pointed out that an offence committed by one member of the family canno❀t invite action against other members or their legally-constructed home.
"In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally-constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for the demolition of a p🌜roperty," the SC said.
"Moreover, the alleged crime haꦬs to be proved through due legal process in a court of law. The𝔉 court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise, such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land," it added.
On a plea of one Javedali M Saiyed, who sought protection frಞom the proposed demolition, a notice was issued by the SC bench to the Gujarat government and the Kathlal civic body in Kheda.
A response from the state and the civic body has been sought by the apex court within four weeks. "In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner's property is to be maintained by all concerne🥃d," the bench sai🍬d.
The petitioner's counsel told the apex court that three generations of his c♊lient's family had been living in the house🥃 for the last two decades.
He said that an FIR was registered against one of the family members on September 1 and claimed that autho෴rities of the municipaꦿl corporation threatened to bulldoze the petitioner's family house.
The SC bench noted that the petitioner referred to a complaint -- which was addressed to the police on September 6 -- alleging house trespass. The complaint described the situation and said that law should take its own course against the person accused of ♛crime.
The apex court also took note of the petitioner's contention that the civic body has no ♋reason to either threaten or take any steps such as bulldozing his legally-constructed and occupied house.
The Supreme Court bench agreed to examine the case and posted it 𝕴for next mo🐼nth.
