haldwani: 50,000 can’t be uprooted overnight: SC stays
Expressing disapproval of the high court direction ordering demolition of houses in seven days, a division bench comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka observed that 50,000 people cannot be uprooted in seven days.
Staying the demolition order, the top court asked the state government and the railways department to find a practical solution. The bench noted that many of the occupants had acquired title to the land they had been residing on for the past several decades.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Kaul verbally said that the occupants of the land are claiming right on the land on the basis of lease and auction purchases after they migrated after 1947. Observing that it was “troubling,” Justice Kaul added that some people have stayed on the land for 50 to 60 years.
“Some rehabilitation has to be given. There are establishments here. Even in those cases where there are no rights at all, even in them rehabilitation has to be done. But in some cases where they acquired title… you have to find a solution,” Justice Kaul added.
Referring to the HC directions, Justice Oka verbally remarked: “It may not be correct to say that paramilitary forces have to be deployed to remove people who have been living there for decades.”
Clarifying that it is not staying the proceedings pending in the HC, the bench said only the directions (of demolition of houses) passed by the HC have been stayed. The bench also said there shall be no further construction or development on the disputed land.
Challenging the direction of the HC passed in December, the petitioners had argued the HC “gravely erred in holding that the Public Premises Act is not applicable to the Railway Authorities”. The petitioners had contended that the error is multifaceted. “Firstly, the applicability of the Public Premises Act was not challenged and no relief qua the same was sought in the PIL and hence the HC ought to not have taken it upon itself to enter into an undisputed issue,” the petitioners said.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves argued that the possession of the land has been with the petitioners since prior independence and government leases have also been executed in their favour. On the other hand, counsel for Indian Railways contended that due process has been followed and the land in question belongs to the railways.