NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the state of Assam to maintain status quo on Sonapur demolitions drive and issued a notice to the authorities in response to a contempt petition filed by 47 residents, who alleged deliberate non-compliance with the Court’s interim order dated September 17.
The order had directed that no demolition should occur anywhere in the country without the Court’s prior approval.
Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, constituting the bench, issued a notice returnable within three weeks and directed the parties to maintain the status quo in the intervening period.
Earlier on September 17, raising serious concern over bulldozers being used as a punitive tool, which SC said was against the ethos of the Constitution and needed to be subjected to “judicial oversight“, Justices Gavai and Viswanathan said there was apprehension of its misuse by the executive, which could not act as the judge.
However, the bench said that its order would not come in the way of authorities taking action in case of encroachment on roads and public land, and structures built on it could be demolished without notice even if they were religious in nature.
Faruk Ahmed and many other petitioners have said in their petition that they have been residing in the villages of Kachutoli Pathar, Kachutoli, and Kachutoli revenue village in Sonapur mouza, Kamrup Metro district, for an extended period. They have been occupying the land under a legally valid deed of Power of Attorney executed by the original pattadars (landowners), although they do not possess ownership rights.
The petition also mentioned a Gauhati High Court order dated September 20, 2024, in which the Advocate General provided an undertaking that no action would be taken against the petitioners until their representations were disposed of, following the Supreme Court’s February 3, 2020 order.
However, the authorities allegedly marked the petitioners’ homes for eviction without prior notice.
The petitioners have said that they have been living peacefully on the land for over seven or eight decades, without any dispute with the neighbouring tribal or protected communities. They have clarified that, contrary to the authorities’ claims of them being illegal occupiers of tribal land, they have been allowed to reside there by the original landowners, many of whom belong to protected classes. The petitioners have emphasized that the land was never sold to them, and they have never claimed ownership, ANI reported.
Furthermore, the petitioners have stated that they and their ancestors have been registered pattadars of the scheduled lands since the 1950s, well before the area was designated a Tribal Belt.
SC passed the interim order that would remain valid till the next date of hearing on Oct 1 after it was alleged that razing of houses and commercial property continued unabated in different states even after SC frowned on the practice and agreed to examine a plea for framing guidelines.