By Admin 
Supreme Court on Bulldozer Action: The Supreme Court has reprimanded the UP government for bulldozer action. The apex court said that the victims should have given enough time before taking such action. This incident has shocked the ‘conscience of the court’. The court gave relief to the victims and gave conditional permission to rebuild the houses. The case is from Prayagraj, where in the year 2021, the houses of a lawyer, a professor and others were broken with bulldozers.
The bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh objected to the manner in which the victims were vandalized and termed it as arbitrariness of the state. The bench said, “The way this work was done within 24 hours of the notice, it has shook the conscience of the court.” The court gave the victims conditional permission to build a house at their expense, stating that they will have to give an affidavit that they will appeal on time, will not claim any land and will not include any third party. If their appeal is rejected, then they will have to break the houses again at their expense.
Notice at night and action next day: SC
The case is related to lawyer Zulfikar Haider, Professor Ali Ahmed, two widows and another person. He moved the Supreme Court after the petition was dismissed in the Allahabad High Court. They allege that the officials issued notices of demolition on Saturday night and broke their houses the next day. He did not get a chance to challenge this action. The victims say that the state government had linked their land to gangster Atik Ahmed.
Government bid- notice was given in 2020, 2021
India’s Attorney General R.K. Venkataramani defended the government’s decision, saying that the first notice was given to him on December 8, 2020. After this, notices were also given in January 2021 and March 2021. AG said, ‘Therefore we cannot say that the appropriate process was not followed. The entire process has been followed in this case.
Notices were not given in legal manner: court
The court said, ‘The state government should work impartially by giving appropriate time so that people can appeal. Notice was given on March 6 and bulldozer action took place on March 7. We allow them to rebuild the house. The bench also said that the notice was given by pasting the notice, which is not a legal way. Only the last notice was given legally.
‘The court cannot tolerate it’
The court, while giving the order, said, ‘We are going to pass the order in view of these facts, the way the whole process was done. The court cannot tolerate such a process. If we tolerate in one case then it will continue. We will pass the order that they can build a house at their expense and if the appeal is canceled, then they will have to break the house at their expense.