12 hours ago
HC sees red over house demolition in Baghpat despite stay order
Coming down heavily on the collector, SDM and tehsildar of Baghpat district for allegedly demolishing a woman's house in violation of its interim stay order, the Allahabad high court remarked that executive officers in the state seem to derive a 'sense of achievement' from flouting judicial directions. The high court came down heavily on the collector, SDM, and tehsildar. (For representation)
The court directed all three officials to file personal affidavits by July 7, 2025, explaining why the building was demolished in violation of its order.
Earlier, the petitioner, Chhama, was granted an interim injunction from the high court on May 15, 2025, wherein eviction and demolition proceedings initiated against her under Section 67 of the UP-Revenue Code were stayed.
In its order, the court had specifically directed that 'constructions of the petitioner shall not be demolished' and it also restrained any recovery in pursuance of the demolition order passed on July 5, 2024.
However, on May 16, 2025, a team of revenue officials, allegedly led by the SDM and tehsildar and assisted by the police, proceeded to raze her house despite being shown a physical copy of the court's order passed a day before.
The petitioner then moved a contempt application against Avnish Tripathi, the sub-divisional magistrate of Sadar tehsil in Baghpat; Abhishek Kumar, tehsildar; Deepak Sharma, revenue inspector; and Mohit Tomar, lekhpal, for 'wilfully disobeying' the order of the high court.
The application also contained photographs which, the court noted, showed that the officers were 'reading the order of the High Court while the demolition was in progress' and yet chose to proceed.
Thus, observing that 'any action done, whatever be its nature, in violation of a judicial order, is a nullity', the bench observed on May 29 that prima facie the demolition had been carried out in violation of the high court's interim order.
Issuing notices to the officials concerned, the bench called for their responses and posted the matter for the next hearing on July 7.
