Dispute grows in Chandausi tehsil after notices issued to residents; affected families question rehabilitation plans and fairness
SAMBHAL — A fresh controversy has emerged in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district after the local administration ordered several families to vacate houses under the Kanshiram housing scheme, leading to protests and allegations of unfair action by affected residents.
The issue relates to a housing complex in Chandausi tehsil, originally built during the tenure of former chief minister Mayawati under a government welfare scheme. Although the flats were constructed years ago, formal allotment was not completed after a change in government.
Over time, local authorities shifted families living in nearby slum areas close to a railway line into these houses. At present, out of 108 units, around 35 are occupied by Hindu families and about 20 by Muslims, while many flats remain vacant.
According to locals, complaints had been raised about the misuse of empty flats. Some residents alleged that outsiders were using vacant units for drugs and other unlawful activities, creating concern in the area.
A resident said, “We had complained that some people were using empty houses for wrong activities. This was affecting safety, especially for families living nearby.”
Following complaints, the district magistrate and superintendent of police visited the site to assess the situation. After the inspection, notices were issued asking certain families to vacate the premises within 25 days.
This decision has led to strong reactions from Muslim families in the housing complex, who claim they have been unfairly targeted.
One affected resident said, “We were brought here by the administration itself. Now we are being asked to leave. Where will we go with our families?”
Another resident added, “We have documents related to our stay. If there is a problem, action should be taken against those responsible, not against families who are living peacefully.”
Opposition parties have also criticised the move, raising concerns about whether the action is being applied equally. A local opposition leader said, “If illegal activities are the issue, then action should be taken against those involved. It should not appear that only one community is being asked to leave.”
At the same time, some locals argue that the core issue is the misuse of vacant flats by outsiders. They believe stronger monitoring and targeted action would be more effective than eviction.
So far, district authorities have not issued a detailed public explanation on why specific families were asked to vacate or whether alternative arrangements will be provided.
An official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “The action is linked to maintaining law and order. Further clarification will be issued soon.”
The situation has created uncertainty among affected families, many of whom say they are worried about losing their homes without clear rehabilitation plans.
As the deadline approaches, the focus remains on whether the administration will review its decision or provide further details on the basis of the eviction notices.
