Won’t raze homes in Uttam Nagar without notice: MCD to HC

New Delhi: Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on Tuesday told Delhi High Court that it will not carry out any demolition at the homes of individuals allegedly involved in a Holi day clash in Uttam Nagar—without issuing prior notice. The assurance was given before Justice Amit Bansal during the hearing of petitions filed by Jarina, mother of accused Imran, and Shahnaz, whose children were questioned by police. Both feared that their houses might be razed without due process. Recording the civic body's statement, the court closed the petitions. "Senior advocate Sanjay Poddar submits that MCD shall not take action against unauthorised constructions without issuing notice to the petitioners, and that any action will be in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment on demolitions," the court noted. Earlier, the petitioners' counsel told the court they feared the civic agency would demolish their homes without following legal procedure. MCD clarified that its assurance applied only to the specific residential premises mentioned in the case, not to any other properties. Last week, the high court had granted interim protection from demolition for a week and asked the petitioners to file a fresh plea outlining their concerns. The case stems from a March 4 clash between two neighbouring families with a long-standing dispute in Uttam Nagar that resulted in the death of a 26-year-old man. Several people, including a minor, have been apprehended. On March 8, MCD demolished part of the house belonging to accused Umardeep's family, stating it encroached on a drain. In earlier hearings, the civic body submitted that the demolition was part of an encroachment removal drive and was not selective, and that no prior notice was required for clearing structures built over public drains. Jarina had argued in her previous petition that the demolition created fear in the locality and raised concerns that her home could also be razed without following due process. The petitions contended that demolitions cannot be used as punitive action in criminal cases and must be preceded by a show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard.