Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court on Monday pulled up civic authorities over the demolition of nearly 100 houses in Surat’s Nasirnagar slum, saying it appeared the razing was carried out under the garb of road demarcation. The court also criticised the police for not intervening, observing it was the duty of officers not to support an illegal demolition.The matter was heard by Justice Nikhil Kariel, who recorded in the order: “It clearly appears that under the garb of demarcation, the corporation’s officials had demolished the properties of some of the petitioners and others.”Surat municipal commissioner M Nagarajan told the court the demolition was not carried out by the Surat Municipal Corporation. “… The demolition was not carried out by the officials of the corporation under any authority of corporation” and “an inquiry has been commissioned”, the commissioner submitted in HC.The demolition of around 100 houses in the Nasirnagar slums on May 30 drew attention after no authority, including SMC, owned responsibility for the action. Residents approached HC alleging the demolition was illegal and carried out without due process, and claimed that police and SMC officials, along with private developers, were present at the site. They also sought alternative accommodation under the rehabilitation policy.After the court sought an explanation, Surat police told HC its officials were present on May 30 because they had received a request from SMC on May 21 for bandobast for “demarcation of road” in the area.Justice Kariel noted that under the garb of demarcation, SMC officials had demolished properties, and said police should have intervened knowing the demolition was being carried out without authority.On June 25, HC had sought responses from municipal and police authorities and from Torrent Power, which disconnected electricity supply after receiving phone calls. The court sought a detailed response from the company’s top official on the episode and the procedure followed for snapping power connections, and said in its order that the company’s explanation does not “appeal the reason”.Surat police commissioner Anupam Singh Gehlaut filed an affidavit detailing how police began inquiring into complaints of illegal demolition. The HC said the police commissioner should not have waited so long to act after learning about a large-scale demolition without legal authority.A government pleader sought to defend the police, saying their presence was requested for road demarcation and that once demolition began, officers were not required to decide whether the SMC’s action was legal. The HC rejected the submission and said: “Prima facie it would appear to this Court that when Police Bandobast had been sought for a demarcation activity and under the guise of demarcation, if demolition was being carried out, it was the duty of the police officials not to support such an illegal activity and considering the seniority of police officials present at the site, they should have intervened and ensured that such illegal activity ought not to have been permitted to be carried out.” The court directed the police commissioner to file an affidavit explaining the inaction.The municipal commissioner told the HC that an inquiry committee report was expected during the day, and the advocate general sought time to inform the court of action taken against those responsible after the report was received. He also assured the court that proper accommodation had been provided to those rendered shelterless.While seeking affidavits from top authorities and issuing notices to developers who were present during the demolition, the HC directed the SMC: “It is clarified that the Corporation shall continue ensuring all basic facilities to the persons displaced on account of the demolition till further orders passed by this Court in that regard.”The matter will be heard next on July 2.
