The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- A two-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court gave a split verdict on whether properties of accused persons should be protected from demolition for two years after an FIR is registered.
- Justice Atul Sridharan held that such demolitions under the garb of municipal law violations amount to retaliatory action and ordered a two-year moratorium, while Justice Siddhartha Nandan disagreed, saying no fixed time bar could be imposed.
- The case arose from a petition by a Hamirpur family facing POCSO and illegal conversion charges who feared their home would be demolished.
- With the judges divided, the matter has been referred to a third judge via the Chief Justice.
What to watch next
- The third judge's opinion on the two referred questions, including whether Article 226 powers allow an in rem two-year moratorium on action under the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
- Whether the court directs officials to give a notice of intent one year before starting action under municipal laws
- The state's argument that the petition is premature, with the petitioners yet to reply to a notice issued to them
Coverage1
1 report
Indian-language1
All filed from India
Named India · Faizuddin · Government of Uttar Pradesh · Allahabad High Court · Atul Sridharan · Siddharth Nandan · Sumerpur police station (Hamirpur) · Supreme Court of India
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.