Omar Rashid 
New Delhi: The Allahabad high court on Sunday, October 20, provided temporary relief to almost two dozen residents of Bahraich, most or almost all of them Muslims, who were served demolition notices by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led administration following the communal violence that took place in a part of the district during the Durga puja idol procession last week.
While the court did not explicitly put a stay on the demolition and kept the question of the petition’s merit open, it observed that it had “no reason to believe that” the recent order passed by the Supreme Court putting a stay on demolitions other than against unauthorised constructions, “shall not be carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh in letter and spirit.”
The high court bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi, hearing a PIL filed by NGO Association For Protection Of Civil Rights through its East Uttar Pradesh chapter, granted the affected persons 15 days time to respond to the notices served to them.
“We expect the persons faced with the notices to participate with the proceedings in the meantime. We further provide that in case they file their reply to the notice within a period of 15 days from today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order which shall be communicated to the parties aggrieved,” said the bench.
Demolition notices on October 18
The PIL was filed after the Public Works Department in Bahraich served notices on 23 buildings, including homes, in the Maharajganj area of Bahraich where violence broke out on October 13 in which a Hindu youth Ram Gopal Mishra died of a bullet. The violence erupted after some local Muslims objected to the playing of loud music – other versions say the music was also vulgar – in the procession that was passing by their door in Maharajganj area.
A screengrab from a videos purporting to show a man taking down an Islamic flag, in Bahraich.
Following Mishra’s death in the initial incident, which was preceded by him climbing atop a Muslim house and uprooting their railing to remove a green Islamic flag and waving in its place a saffron flag of Hindu deity Ram, there were incidents of large-scale arson and vandalism against members of the Muslim community. The arson and vandalism went on for two days before police brought things under control.
However, on October 18, the local administration served demolition notices dated October 17 to some local Muslims, including Abdul Hamid, whose sons have been accused of killing Mishra.
Hamid and his sons are under arrest.
While some reports suggested that around 20 of the 23 notices were issued to Muslims and the remaining to Hindus, there was no clarity on that from the administration. We cannot independently ascertain how many of those served notices were accused of killing Mishra or what role they had in the initial flare-up.
Also read: UP Police Shoot at Two Muslim Men For Murder of Hindu Youth in Bahraich Communal Incident
The notices said that any construction within 60 feet from the centre of the Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj District Road fell into the category of illegal construction. The administration asked the affected persons to show proof within three days that the construction done by them was carried out after securing permission of the District Magistrate or the concerned department. If not, they had to remove the structure themselves within three days. If they did not remove the alleged encroachment, the administration and the police would do so, and the costs would be recovered from the affected persons, said the notices. The notices created a sense of fear among the local Muslims who started shifting their belongings elsewhere, anticipating demolitions.
‘No clarity in notices’: HC
While hearing the PIL against the notices, the high court pointed out that there was no clarity in the notices. The court granted the state counsel three days to obtain complete information from the government regarding the category of the road and the norms applicable. “Leaving all these aspects of the matter open, what pricks to the conscious [conscience] of this court is the issuance of notices to submit the reply within a short span of three days. As to what number of houses situated on kilometer-38, of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road have been duly authorized for construction is also not much evident from the notice which may require clarity,” the bench said.
The court referred to the apex court’s order dated September 17 in which it said that there would be no demolition anywhere across the country without seeking permission of the SC.
The high court judges took note of the exceptions made in the SC order for demolition of unauthorised structures in any public places. “Evidently, unauthorised structures in any public place such as roads, streets, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law are the exceptions to the general rule,” said Justices Masoodi and Vidyarthi.
In the Bahraich case, the HC said that it found that on Kilometre 38 of the Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road some notices were issued to some persons for raising unauthorised constructions. The court further questioned the maintainability of the PIL as the aggrieved persons had not approached it.
“It is unclear in the pleadings as to whether the persons aggrieved have filed any reply or have approached any forum or not. In any case, notices issued against a limited number of persons who are to participate in the proceedings cannot be viewed to be a matter of general public importance, which may be taken cognizance of in a public interest litigation unless the vulnerability of an aggrieved person is such that he is established to be the one who is unable to approach the court for availing the remedy available under law,” said the HC.
Lawyer Syed Mehfuzur Rehman, the vice-president of APCR’s UP unit, said that most of the occupants served notices could not respond to it as most of them were either in jail or had fled their homes due to fear.