However, during the hearing before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave had questioned the need of the demolition drive and argued that under the Act, no demolition can take place until the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
One of the petitioners, Brinda Karat, argued in her plea,
“Without giving a proper show cause notice and giving breathing time to people residing/working in Jahangir Puri area of North Delhi the respondents started demolition of their houses, shops and other buildings denying their precious constitutional rights and right to life. The entire action is absolutely and manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21.”
The plea relied on Sections 317 and 343 of the 1957 Act to contend that the law specifically mandated due notice and time for showing cause before removal of encroachment or demolition. Section 317 states,
“The Commissioner may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove, or to take such other action as he may direct in relation to, any structure or fixture which has been erected, set up, added to, or placed against, or in front of, the said premises in contravention of this section.”
Similarly, Section 343 deals with orders of demolition and stoppage of buildings and works in certain cases and the appeal process. It states,
“No order of demolition shall be made unless the person has been given by means of a notice served in such manner as the Commissioner may think fit, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order shall not be made.”
Source: Barandbench
