Uttarakhand High Court Halts Demolition of House Linked to Rape Case
Court Decision on House Demolition
The Uttarakhand High Court has put a stop to the demolition of a residence owned by a 73-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in Nainital, as reported on Tuesday.
A bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra issued the stay on December 12, following a petition from the accused man's wife. The court stated that demolition actions would be paused until the end of the winter season.
The court has instructed the District Level Development Authority to submit its response by January 5.
The accused, identified as Usman, allegedly committed the crime on April 12, enticing the minor with money. The girl disclosed the incident to her family on April 20, leading them to report it to the authorities.
A first information report was subsequently filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, resulting in Usman's arrest.
Following the incident, communal tensions erupted in the resort town.
On May 1, municipal authorities in Nainital issued a demolition notice to Usman, demanding the removal of purportedly illegal structures from his property within three days or face further action. The authorities claimed these structures encroached on government or forest land.
Other residents in the vicinity also received similar notices.
Usman's wife contested the notice in the High Court.
During the proceedings, municipal officials acknowledged that the notice issuance did not align with Supreme Court guidelines regarding illegal demolitions, leading to its withdrawal.
Indian law does not permit property demolition as a punitive measure, yet this practice has become prevalent in states governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party.
In November 2024, the Supreme Court deemed the practice of demolishing properties of crime suspects as illegal, emphasizing the need for due process before any removal of alleged encroachments.
Despite this, the District Level Development Authority issued a demolition notice to Usman on May 7 without a proper hearing.
Usman's wife responded via registered post, explaining her husband's incarceration made it impossible for him to attend the hearing.
Nonetheless, the authority proceeded with the demolition order on July 17 without considering Usman's defense.
His family appealed to the commissioner of the Kumaon division, who also chairs the District Level Development Authority, but this appeal was rejected.
On December 9, officials from the District Level Development Authority visited Usman's residence, warning his family to vacate within three days.
Following this, Usman's wife approached the High Court again.
In her petition, she highlighted that the District Level Development Authority had issued a notice to vacate with the intent to demolish, raising concerns about the targeting of her husband's home while other allegedly illegal constructions in the area were overlooked.
She accused the authority of acting out of malice and under pressure from various groups, noting that no notice had been served to her husband prior to the case being filed against him.
Conversely, the District Level Development Authority defended its actions in court, asserting compliance with Supreme Court directives and claiming that the area in question was forest land, alleging that Usman lacked valid documentation.