Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing On Demolition, CJI Directs Petitioner To High Court

Chief Justice Surya Kant refused an urgent hearing on a property demolition case, emphasizing that petitioners must approach the High Court first. He expressed displeasure over the trend of bypassing lower courts to seek immediate relief from the Supreme Court, stating he would not pass orders even if the building is demolished today.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday, July 20, took a firm stand regarding the procedural hierarchy of the judiciary while dealing with a petition against property demolition. Chief Justice Surya Kant, while presiding over the matter, categorically refused to grant an urgent hearing to the petitioner who had approached the apex court to seek a stay on the demolition of a building, while the court emphasized that the legal process must follow the established hierarchy, and petitioners shouldn't bypass the High Courts to seek immediate intervention from the Supreme Court.

CJI Surya Kant's Strong Remarks on Demolition

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Surya Kant made significant observations regarding the nature of the petition and the timing of the request. When the petitioner's counsel sought an immediate stay on the demolition action, the CJI remarked that even if the property in question were to be completely demolished today, he would still not pass an order at this stage, while this statement underscored the court's insistence on following the correct legal channel rather than entertaining matters that should ideally be heard by the respective High Courts first. The Supreme Court made it clear that it wouldn't consider the case in the first instance, especially when a lower appellate forum is available to the aggrieved party.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioner

The counsel representing the petitioner urged the court for an urgent hearing on the same day, citing that the authorities were already in the process of carrying out the demolition, while the lawyer argued that the action being taken by the officials was arbitrary because the building had a duly approved construction plan. According to the petitioner's legal team, the construction was carried out in strict accordance with the sanctioned plan provided by the relevant authorities, while they contended that despite the existence of these legal documents, the officials were proceeding with the demolition, which necessitated immediate judicial protection to prevent irreparable loss.

The Dispute Over Pond Land Allegations

The core of the dispute, as explained by the lawyer to the Supreme Court, involves allegations that the property was constructed on land designated as a pond area, while the lawyer informed the court that the authorities are justifying the demolition on the grounds that the building encroaches upon a water body. However, the petitioner strongly denied these allegations, asserting that the construction wasn't on pond land and that they possessed a valid and approved building plan for the site. The counsel maintained that the building was constructed following all legal formalities and that the officials' claims regarding the pond land were incorrect.

Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure Over Bypassing High Courts

Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed his displeasure with the growing tendency of parties to bypass the High Courts and approach the Supreme Court directly for urgent relief. The court noted that this trend undermines the role of the High Courts and puts an unnecessary burden on the apex court for matters that can be effectively addressed at the state level. The CJI clarified that the Supreme Court wouldn't provide any interim protection in this case and advised the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court to seek relief. The court reiterated that the High Court is the appropriate forum for such disputes in the first instance, and the petitioner must exhaust that remedy before knocking on the doors of the Supreme Court.

Final Decision and Directive

Ultimately, the Supreme Court refused to grant any stay or interim protection against the demolition. The bench led by CJI Surya Kant dismissed the plea for an urgent hearing and directed the petitioner to take their grievances to the High Court, while by refusing to intervene even under the threat of immediate demolition, the Supreme Court sent a clear message about the importance of judicial discipline and the necessity of following the proper legal route. The matter concluded with the court's refusal to entertain the petition, leaving the petitioner to seek legal recourse through the High Court as per the court's instructions.