-By Prabhat Kumar Tyagi
Supreme Court issued an interim stay on the construction of the Dashashwamedh Ghat station at the Varanasi Ropeway Project, following claims of unlawful demolition by three landowners.
Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Sanjay Karol granted the injunction after petitioner alleged that authorities had demolished their property without due process facilitate the project. Supreme Court directed Varanasi Development Authority and Uttar Pradesh government to respond to the court’s petition by April 14 with all the construction.
Legal Dispute Over Property Rights
Varanasi Ropeway Project also known as the Kashi Ropeway Project is intended to relax traffic congestion in the city. Nevertheless, the government is now accused of illegal destruction of property to build the Dashashwamedh Ghat station.
Initially, the affected property owners moved to the Allahbad High Court, which issued no order suspending construction. As a consequence, the petitioners took the issue to the Supreme Court, claiming that ongoing constructions would bring irreparable harm to their properties. They alleged that even when the court had recognized the problem of demolition, authorities continued illegal constructions, not addressing their legal issues.
High Court did not pass any order which would stop the ongoing construction work. As the property owners have filed their appeal in the Supreme Court since then they challenge the denial of the High Court in passing a stay order.
The petitioners claimed that the High Court made a manifest error is not guarding them against continuing illegal encroachments, denying them peaceful possession of their property. Therefore, they approached the Supreme Court
Allegations of Unlawful Land Acquisition
The petitioners, who are the title owners of a 4,083-square-foot freehold property in Dashashwamedh, said their land comprised five commercial stores. They alleged that the government conducted an unjustifiable demolition without adhering to the legal procedure for land acquisition.
In their appeal, they contended that these steps were violative of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A. They also alleged that authorities did not issue a land acquisition notice or undertake compensation proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013.
The petition was moved by Advocate-on-Record Rohit Amit Sthalekar, and was argued by lawyers Purnendu Bajpai and Shashank Singh.
The case is put up for hearing on April 14
