Uttam Nagar Holi murder: Delhi HC halts demolition of houses of accused
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) not to undertake any demolition till tomorrow against the homes of persons accused of the murder of a 26-year-old in Uttam Nagar during Holi celebrations. Justice Amit Bansal said that no action should be taken by the civic authority till the High Court hears the petitions filed by mothers of accused persons tomorrow (Thursday).
“Nothing should happen between today and tomorrow. Nothing should happen between 4 pm now and tomorrow 10.30 am tomorrow,” Justice Bansal said. The Court passed the direction after counsel appearing for the respondents requested the Bench to hear the matter tomorrow.
The MCD had, on March 8, demolished certain “illegal portions” of a house linked to one of the accused in the murder of 26-year-old Tarun Bhutolia during Holi celebrations on March 4. The accused persons belong to the Muslim community, while the victim is a Hindu and the incident has assumed a communal colour. Justice Bansal was hearing petitions filed by Shahnaz and Jarina seeking protection against the demolition of their homes. While Shahnaz is the mother of Sohel and Ayan (who have been interrogated by the police in the case), Jarina is the mother of co-accused Imran alias Banti.
The petitioners said that the MCD carried out the arbitrary demolition activity immediately after the FIR was registered. They apprehend that their homes may also be demolished as a punitive measure merely because they have been implicated in the criminal case.
“It is pertinent to note that the house in question [which has been demolished] was not built upon any public road or encroached Government land, and several other houses exist in the same vicinity.
The selective demolition of only one house strongly indicates malafide exercise of power by the authorities. Further, the authorities had themselves been collecting municipal revenue and electricity charges for several years, which clearly demonstrates that the property had been in recognized existence,” said Jarina in her plea.
She added that the apprehended demolition would be in direct violation of the principles of natural justice, constitutional protections under Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution and the Supreme Court directions.
