The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court pulls up the municipal corporation for failing to follow the Supreme Court guidelines before the bulldozer action
NAGPUR – The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has pulled up the Nagpur Municipal Corporation over the demolition of a three-storey house belonging to 38-year-old Fahim Khan, who was arrested last year in connection with communal violence in the city.
The court on Thursday asked the civic body whether it intends to rebuild the house or compensate Khan for its value. The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Vakode.
The violence had broken out in Nagpur’s Mahal area after provocative remarks related to the tomb of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad). Fahim Khan was arrested as the main accused in the case.
Within days of his arrest, officials of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation demolished his three-storey house located in Sanjaybag Colony. The action was described as a drive against alleged unauthorised structures.
Family members had earlier said that the demolition left them without shelter.
A relative of Khan told the court through counsel, “The house was brought down in haste. No proper opportunity was given to respond.”
During the hearing, the high court observed that the civic body had failed to follow directions laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the demolition of alleged illegal structures.
As per Supreme Court guidelines, authorities must issue a notice and provide at least 15 days for a reply before removing any structure claimed to be unauthorised.
The bench asked the municipal corporation whether it would reconstruct the demolished house or pay compensation.
One of the judges remarked in court, “If due process was not followed, how will the loss be addressed? Will you build the house again or pay its value?”
The high court has directed the civic body to file its reply by 4 March.
During the proceedings, Nagpur Municipal Commissioner Abhijeet Chaudhari appeared before the court and expressed regret.
According to submissions made in court, the commissioner admitted that officials were not aware of the specific Supreme Court directions related to demolition actions.
He apologised for the lapse and assured the bench that the matter would be examined.
The case has once again brought attention to the issue of bulldozer action in cases linked to communal unrest.
Legal experts say that demolition without proper notice can raise serious constitutional questions.
A senior advocate not connected with the case said, “Even if a person is accused in a criminal matter, property rights cannot be taken away without following due process. Administrative action must stand the test of law.”
For Khan’s family, the immediate concern remains housing and compensation.
“We are not asking for special treatment,” a family member said outside court. “We only want what is lawful and fair.”
The high court’s next hearing is expected to determine whether the civic body’s action complied with legal requirements and what remedy, if any, should follow.
