Raj HC stays punitive demolition of rape-accused's houses, masjid
text_fields
Jaipur: Pulling up the state government for its “hell-bent” move of going forward with the demolition of the house of the Beawar rape case accused, the Rajasthan High Court stayed the demolition move. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions by the families of the accused who faced demolition of their homes. It noted that the petitioners had filed their responses to a show-cause notice upon its receipt well in time, but the state administration was “hell-bent” on demolishing properties that belonged to the petitioners, The Indian Express reported.
The court ordered that the status quo be maintained until the hearing on March 11.
The notices issued to the families of the accused include alleged violations of sections 194 and 245 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, which deals with building norms and unauthorised encroachments, The Times of India reported.
The rape case involves 11 accused Muslim men who were arrested last month over alleged rape and blackmail of five girls, The Times of India reported. Three FIRs were filed against them on February 16 based on complaints from the girls’ families, and the incident led to communal tensions in the area. Following this, the Bijaynagar municipality issued demolition notices for the homes of the accused persons’ families.
The families challenged the demolition notices in the Rajasthan High Court, naming the state’s local self-government department, the additional chief secretary (home department), the Beawar district collector, the superintendent of police and the Bijaynagar municipality as respondents.
The petitioners argued at the court that the homes marked for demolition did not belong to the accused persons but to their families.
Syed Saadat, the counsel for the petitioners, told the court, “All those who have been made an accused are arrested and that notices have been pasted on their homes. However, the homes do not belong to the accused; they belong to their grandfather, father, uncle, etc. Not a single home is owned by the accused. So that was our argument, that these properties don’t belong to the accused, and so they cannot be demolished.”
He then argued that the municipality had not followed the Supreme Court’s November 16 guidelines on punitive demolitions.
Following the incident of rape and the case, which led to the arrest of 11 Muslims, the VHP rose to the occasion to act, claiming that the Muslim men targeted the Hindu girls because they were associated with a Hindu organisation. The municipality had served demolition notices not just to the families of the accused but to a local Jama Masjid in the locality accusing it of encroachment.