Supreme Court Declines Plea for Contempt Proceedings in Sambhal Demolition Case
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking contempt proceedings against authorities in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, for allegedly violating its previous verdict on property demolitions.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran advised the petitioner, Mohammed Ghayoor, to approach the jurisdictional high court for resolution. “We believe the high court is best suited to address this issue. Hence, we dispose of the petition to the jurisdictional high court,” the bench stated.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel requested the court to ensure that no third-party rights are created over the disputed property in the interim. The bench, however, reiterated that the petitioner should file appropriate proceedings in the high court, adding, “We have already issued all necessary directions.”
The court referred to its earlier ruling on November 13, 2024, in which it had clarified that grievances related to breaches of demolition guidelines should be taken up with the respective high court.
The plea, filed through advocate Chand Qureshi, alleged that authorities in Sambhal had violated the Supreme Court’s November 13 verdict. The ruling had established nationwide guidelines, mandating that no property could be demolished without first issuing a show-cause notice and granting the affected party 15 days to respond.
According to the petitioner, a portion of his property was demolished by local authorities on January 10 and 11 without prior notice or an opportunity to present his case.
The plea further claimed that the petitioner and his family possessed all necessary legal documents, including approved building plans and related paperwork. “Despite this, the respondents arrived at the petitioner’s property and began demolishing it without any lawful justification,” the petition stated.
In its earlier ruling, the Supreme Court had issued a set of comprehensive guidelines for demolitions across India. The court emphasized that no property should be demolished without following due process, including providing prior notice and an opportunity for the affected party to respond.
However, the court also clarified exceptions to these guidelines. The directions would not apply to unauthorized structures in public spaces, such as roads, streets, footpaths, areas adjacent to railway lines, rivers, or water bodies. Additionally, demolitions ordered by a court of law were exempt from these guidelines.
With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the petitioner has been directed to seek recourse from the appropriate high court. This case highlights the ongoing challenges of ensuring compliance with court-ordered demolition procedures and protecting citizens’ rights against unauthorized actions by local authorities.
