Alleged involvement in a crime is no ground to demolish properties, the Supreme Court said on Thursday and ordered a civic body in Gujarat to maintain status quo and not threaten to bulldoze the house of an accused in a criminal case.
Observing that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a country where the law is supreme, the court said it cannot be oblivious to such actions that may be seen as "running a bulldozer over the laws of the land".
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and S V N Bhatti said, "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 property."
"Moreover, the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a court of law. The 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.
The bench issued a notice to the Gujarat government and the civic body of Kathlal in Kheda district of the state on a plea of one Javedali M Saiyed seeking protection from the proposed demolition.
The court sought the response of the state and the civic body within four weeks.
"In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner's property is to be maintained by all concerned," it ordered.
The petitioner's counsel said three generations of his client's family have been residing in the house for the last two decades.
He said an FIR was registered against one of the family members on September 1 and claimed that the municipal authorities have threatened to bulldoze the petitioner's family house.
The bench noted that the petitioner has referred to a complaint alleging house trespass addressed to the police authorities on September 6, in which the situation was described and it was said that law should take its own course against the person accused of crime.
The order of the bench further took note of the petitioner's contention that the civic body has no reason to either threaten or take any steps, such as using bulldozers, to demolish his legally-constructed and legally-occupied house.
The top court agreed to examine the case and listed it after a month.
