Status quo on demolition of ‘jhuggis’ near railway track in Faridabad to continue till Oct 7: SC

The Supreme Court Thursday said that status quo granted on the demolition of jhuggis near the railway tracks in Faridabad concerning the structures belonging to those, who have approached the court seeking stay of the eviction, would continue till October 7.

The Supreme Court Thursday said that status quo granted on the demolition of ‘jhuggis’ near the railway tracks in Faridabad concerning the structures belonging to those, who have approached the court seeking stay of the eviction, would continue till October 7. The apex court had on Wednesday ordered maintenance of status quo on the demolition of ‘jhuggis’ till the next date of hearing after the matter was mentioned before it for urgent listing.

The matter came up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar which said it would be heard along with a pending matter in which the top court had earlier passed an interim order directing the authorities to maintain the status quo on the demolition of around 5,000 'jhuggis' in Gujarat for a Railway line project.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj told the bench, also comprising justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar, that around 450 structures out of 700 in the area in Faridabad were already demolished before the order of status quo was passed by the court.

“That aspect can be considered on the next occasion. Subject to above, status quo order granted on September 29 in respect of unauthorized structures belonging to the petitioners herein, to continue till the next date of hearing,” the bench said in its order.

When the bench said it would hear the plea on October 7 along with the pending matter, the ASG said the interim relief be confined to the petitioners only.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the 18 petitioners including those who are residing in the area in Faridabad, Haryana, said the plea has been filed on behalf of the residents of the slum colony.

When the bench said the pleadings do not indicate that the plea is filed in “representative capacity”, Gonsalves said he would amend the writ petition pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

“Colin Gonsalves, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, was at pains to commend us that there are other structures in respect of which similar protection needs to be given. The memo of the writ petition on record, however, does not indicate that it was filed in a representative capacity,” the bench said, adding, “He submits that, in that case, the petitioners will take steps to amend the writ petition pending before the high court.” The bench said the pendency of plea before it would not come in the way of the petitioners to pursue the writ petition pending before the high court.

The plea filed in the apex court has challenged the September 28 interim order of the high court which had refused to grant a stay on the demolition.

In the plea filed in the apex court, the petitioners have claimed that demolition without providing rehabilitation to over 500 slum dwellers was “illegal” and violative of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

The plea said the high court has nowhere asked the concerned authorities and the land-owning agency, the Railways, to provide rehabilitation to these slum dwellers before conducting the demolition.