Allahabad HC directs Ghaziabad development body to maintain status quo on demolition notice
Allahabad High Court
has directed that status quo be maintained with regards to the demolition notices issued by
Ghaziabad Development Authority
(
GDA
) over alleged illegal properties built on public land.
Hearing a writ petition, a division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar granted time to the district administration and GDA to place on record how they intend to rehabilitate the old inhabitants of the properties.
The court also restrained the petitioners from creating any third-party interests or undertaking any development on the disputed property.
The court also observed, "In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also find that it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been occupying the place for the last 40-50 years."
"At this stage, we find that some indulgence and reprieve is to be accorded to the inhabitants who belong to the weaker sections of society and we further direct the authorities to ensure the formulation and implementation of a rehabilitation scheme for such persons," it said.
The bench said the rehabilitation scheme shall be provided by the district administration and the GDA in the next hearing. The next hearing is listed for August 22.
The petitioners filed the present writ petition for quashing the demolition notice dated June 16, 2025, issued by the GDA under section 26-A of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
The GDA initially issued notice to 172 illegal occupants of public land on September 6, 2024, which is earmarked in the master plan.
Consequently, 89 persons filed their objections which were considered and the impugned order (order under challenge) was passed.
During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are old inhabitants and in absence of any rehabilitation scheme as per the law, the old inhabitants, who are occupying small pieces of land for their shelter and admittedly belong to the lower sections of society, will suffer irreparable loss, if uprooted.
After hearing both sides, the court in its order dated July 31 passed the above directives and observed, "It is informed that in response to the earlier court's order, till date the GDA has not taken any remedial measures to rehabilitate the persons who were in illegal occupation for the last 40 years."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
28 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Madras HC directs T.N. police to provide protection to theatres screening Vijay Deverakonda-starrer Kingdom in case of disruptions
The Madras High Court on Thursday (August 7, 2025) directed the Tamil Nadu police to provide adequate protection to cinema theatres screening Vijay Deverakonda-starrer Kingdom if there were reports of threats issued to theatre owners or of the screening being disrupted by any individual/organisation. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the orders while disposing of a writ petition filed by SSI Production, which had bagged the Tamil Nadu theaterical rights of the movie, complaining about threats issued to theatre owners by Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) members across the State. The petitioner's counsel told the court that NTK chief coordinator S. Seeman had tweeted against the movie on his X handle on August 4, 2025, alleging that it portrays the Tamil Eelam issue in a derogatory manner and since then, his party members had begun to disrupt the screenings in many theatres. He played to the court videos of the movie's posters and flex boards having been damaged in some places and claimed that in some theatres, the protesters had entered the cinema hall and registered their objection to its content in an attempt to dissuade the public from watching the movie. Letters written by NTK members to some of the theatre owners in the State were also produced before the court. Government Advocate (criminal side) said, so far, 16 persons had been arrested in connection with the issue and that mutiple demonstrations had been conducted by the NTK cadre. On the other hand, advocate S. Shankar, representing Mr. Seeman, told the court his client, being the leader of a political party, had only opposed the content of the movie but had not prevented anyone from screening it. He also said only peaceful protests were undertaken against the movie in a democratic manner. Stating that a few isolated incidents leading to the arrest of 16 people need not be blown out of proportion, he said, it was not right on the part of the makers of Kingdom to portray as though all Sri Lankan Tamils were not natives but only migrants, and that all of them were indulging in illegal activities such as smuggling. Intervening at this point, Justice Chakravarthy said, 'You and I may not agree with the content of the movie if it is very very abhorrent as you say... Some issues may be close to our heart but another person may have a different view on that. The artistic freedom in a democracy will have to be protected always.' In the same breath, agreeing that a political party also has a right to register its protest, the judge said, such protest must be conducted after obtaining due permission from the police and at a place earmarked by the police for the conduct of demonstrations, fast, and so on, he said. 'In a democracy, the creator of a movie has got every right to express his fair views. In this case, it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that Kingdom is a work of fiction. Even if the views expressed in a movie are abhorrent or unpalatable, no third party can prevent the exhibition of the movie or threaten the theatre owners after the censor board had cleared it for screening in theatres,' the judge said.
The Print
40 minutes ago
- The Print
HC says judges shouldn't be ‘bloodthirsty', commutes death sentence in murder case
'There are three cardinal pillars of punishment — retribution, deterrence and reformation. Whereas deterrence still holds good as a justification, retribution has gradually given way to the reformatory aspect of penalties in modern criminal jurisprudence, both in India and elsewhere,' the court said. Passing the judgment, Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya said that the evolution of society has been towards a reformative approach towards penology, as opposed to a retributive approach. Kolkata: Observing that judges should never be 'bloodthirsty', the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court has ordered commutation of the death sentence of a man to life imprisonment for the murder of his maternal uncle. Justice Bhattacharyya commuted the death sentence awarded to Aftab Alam by the Jalpaiguri sessions court for committing offence under Section 396 (dacoity with murder) to life sentence for the rest of his life, without any option of premature release for 20 years, unless exceptional circumstances are made out to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 'Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them,' Justice Bhattacharyya observed. Upholding the conviction of Alam by the trial court for the murder of his maternal uncle at Dhupguri in Jalpaiguri district on July 28, 2023, while committing dacoity at his house along with five other associates, Justice Bhattacharyya, while passing the judgment earlier this week, said that the crime does not fall under the 'rarest of the rare' category. Noting that in a landmark judgment in 1980 by the Supreme Court in the Bachan Singh versus State of Punjab case, a word of caution was put in, to the effect that 'judges should never be bloodthirsty'. 'The alteration of the names of jails from 'prisons' to 'correctional homes' in recent times is for a reason, reflecting the transition from the basic bloodthirsty instinct of society to take revenge to a more civilised policy of attempting to reform the accused, on the principle that one should hate the offence and not the offender,' Justice Bhattacharyya observed. He said that there has been a debate around the world as to the retention of the death sentence as a punishment, however heinous and grave the offence may be. 'The anti-death penalty camp argues that if deterrence is taken to be a reason for punishment, a lifetime of imprisonment is as good as a death sentence. Rather, a lifetime behind bars, which denudes the convict of his freedom for his entire life, is a preferable form to punish him than death, which takes place in a flash,' he noted. Justice Bhattacharyya observed that, pitting the pros and cons against each other, if a person is hanged or otherwise killed by dint of a death penalty, the damage done is irreversible. He said that even if subsequently some new light is shed on the investigation or there is discovery of some new evidence or something to justify the reopening of the investigation, 'there would be no chance of bringing back a life which has already been taken; thus, the death penalty is irreversible.' Alam's lawyer argued that there was no evidence to show that the murder was pre-planned or cold-blooded or to conclude that the same fell under the category of 'rarest of the rare' cases and that the trial judge did not consider the possibility of reformation at all. The additional public prosecutor, appearing for the state, contended that the crime was established beyond doubt and prayed that the capital punishment awarded to the appellant by the trial court be upheld. Holding that the court finds no evidence adduced by the state that the convict is beyond reform, Justice Bhattacharyya said that the young age of Alam, who is in his twenties, is another mitigating factor which precludes awarding the death sentence. Noting that Alam was residing at Delhi for a long time after leaving his maternal uncle's house at Dhupguri, where he had earlier stayed for some years, the high court said that the 'position of trust' approach cannot be applied, since at the time of the offence, the appellant was long gone from the shelter of his uncle. It noted that the 'betrayal' angle, per se, does not justify the death penalty. PTI AMR ACD This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. Also Read: Death penalty is not justice, it is revenge
News18
an hour ago
- News18
TN govt undertakes to provide protection to cinemas screening film Kingdom
Chennai, August 7 (PTI) The Madras High Court on Thursday placed on record the undertaking given by the state police that they would provide protection, if needed, to the movie theatres, where Tamil film 'Kingdom" is screened. Government advocate (criminal side) gave the undertaking when the petition filed by M/s SSI Production came up for hearing before Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy. In its petition, SSI Production sought a direction to the police authorities to provide adequate police protection to the theatres to enable the peaceful and uninterrupted screening of the film 'Kingdom', and further to restrain Seeman and his followers from interfering with the lawful screening of the film. In his order, the judge said when the censor board has certified the film, no third party could prevent the exhibition of the movie. If any threat was made by any individual or organisation, action should be taken against them, the judge said. At the same time, if Seeman, Chief Coordinator of Naam Tamilar Katchi and his party cadres wanted to express their dissent, they could hold a protest after getting permission from the police. They have the liberty to express their contrary view. But, they could conduct the agitation only in a lawful manner, the judge added. PTI COR VGN ADB (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 07, 2025, 15:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
