Review Petition Filed Against Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Lucknow-Akbarnagar Demolition Drive

In the latest development, a review petition has been filed against the Supreme Court's ruling which upheld the demolition drive of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) against alleged unauthorized constructions in the Akbarnagar area of Lucknow city. In the judgment delivered on May 10, the Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta affirmed the Allahabad High Court's observations and directions pertaining to the demolition and eviction action in the Lucknow-Akbarnagar floodplain area. “We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the colony in question has been constructed in the floodplain area. It's an accepted and admitted position that the petitioners do not have any documents or title...infact their claim is based upon adverse possession, etc." Inter-alia, in the review petition, the petitioners have argued that the Court has not considered the statutory protections afforded to the Petitioners under the Uttar Pradesh Slum Area (Improvement and Disposal) Act, 1962 and Uttar Pradesh In-Situ Slum Redevelopment Policy, 2021. As per the petitioners, the scheme outlines a thorough process including the identification of eligible beneficiaries, preparation of detailed plans,obtaining consent of residents, and providing suitable transit accommodation/allowances during redevelopment. However, the LDA bypassed the entire statutory scheme and framed the rehabilitation scheme unilaterally and without jurisdiction., the petition contended. Another ground of challenge is that the Petitioners' contention that the classification of Akbar Nagar as “floodplain area” is incorrect, has not been considered. Besides this, it has also been stated that the judgment did not adhere to the constitutional principles of proportionality, adequate notice, hearing, and rehabilitation before ordering the eviction. “…. the direction to evict the Petitioners without ensuring meaningful engagement and exploring alternatives, as required by constitutional doctrine and international instruments on housing rights, is an error apparent on the face of the record.,” the petition added. It may be noted that the High Court had observed that a rehabilitation policy was already in place under which, the flats with a market value of Rs.15 lacs were being provided under 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana' at the cost of around 4 lakhs only to the petitioners. The same was upheld by the Top Court, noting that this quantum of Rs.4.79 lacs, payable by dwellers (for rehabilitation purposes), will be paid over a period of 15 years. Regarding this, the review petitioners have argued that this requirement contradicts the 2021 Policy's goal of providing affordable housing and on-site rehabilitation to the urban poor. “Overall, the petitioners argued that the rehabilitation scheme imposed on them and upheld in the impugned judgement suffers from a lack of public participation and non-compliance with constitutional standards for rehabilitation and provision of alternative accommodation, as it fails to fulfil the rights to dignified shelter and housing under Article 21 of the Constitution and does not involve meaningful engagement with the residents on issues such as adequacy, safety, distance, etc.,” the petition read. The Top Court's decision, against which the review has been filed, was pronounced on May 10. The Court upheld the demolition drive and, in the same breath, also clarified that no slum dweller should be evicted without being given alternative accommodation. The Division Bench had noted that 1818 applications for rehabilitation and allotment of alternative accommodation have been received. Out of the same, 1032 have been scrutinized and found to be eligible, whereas 706 applications are still under scrutiny. Taking a cue from this, the Court had directed that the dwellers will not be removed without alternative accommodation being allotted to them. The bench also perused a 2014 report by Civil Engineering Department, IIT (Roorkee) pertaining to study of Gomti river front development. The said report described Kukrail nallah/river as a major nallah which joins Gomti river. Details of the maximum flood in the said nallah were also indicated. It further referred to a Sewage Treatment Plant which has been constructed. Background The LDA passed demolition orders with respect to Akbarnagar area, citing illegal construction on Kukrail's riverbed and banks. The Kukrail riverbed merges with River Gomti, which supplies drinking water to nearly entire Lucknow. The LDA's case was that the slum dwellers, over a long period of time, unauthorizedly occupied banks of the Kukrail water channel. They raised disputed constructions and converted the riverbed into an urban open sewer. All the drains of the slum, containing its waste (such as fecal matter) was let loose in the Kukrail water ...

Review Petition Filed Against Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Lucknow-Akbarnagar Demolition Drive

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

Review Petition Filed Against Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Lucknow-Akbarnagar Demolition Drive

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers