Uttarakhand HC issues stay on demolition of house belonging to man accused of raping minor

The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed the demolition of a house belonging to a 73-year-old man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl in Nainital, The Indian Express reported on Tuesday.

A bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra issued the order on December 12 on a petition filed by the wife of the man accused in the case. “Demolition action shall be stayed till the passing of the winter season,” The Indian Express reported the bench as saying.

The bench directed the District Level Development Authority to file its response by January 5, PTI reported.

The man accused of the crime, identified as Usman, worked as a contractor and allegedly raped the minor on April 12 after luring her with money. The girl narrated the incident to her family on April 20, after which they approached the police.

Subsequently, a first information report was registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and he was arrested.

After the incident came to light, communal clashes also broke out in the resort town.

On May 1, the Nainital municipal authorities issued a demolition notice asking Usman to remove allegedly illegal structures from his home within three days or face action. The authorities claimed that the alleged structures encroached “Nagar Palika/government land/forest land”.

Several other persons in the area where the house was located also received the notice.

The notice was challenged by Usman’s wife before the High Court.

In the High Court, the municipal authorities admitted that the process of issuing notice was not in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court regarding demolition of illegal structures, and the notice was withdrawn.

There are no provisions in Indian law that allow for the demolition of property as a punitive measure. However, the practice has become commonplace in Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states.

In November 2024, the Supreme Court held as illegal the practice of demolishing properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. It said that processes must be followed before removing allegedly illegal encroachments.

However, the District Level Development Authority on May 7 pasted a demolition notice on Usman’s home in an ex-parte manner, The Indian Express reported.

An ex parte order is one that is passed without hearing the other side in a legal dispute.

Subsequently, Usman’s wife sent a reply via registered post to the District Level Development Authority, informing that her husband was in jail and that it was not possible for him to appear before it.

However, the District Level Development Authority ordered the demolition on July 17, without hearing the accused man’s case.

His family then filed an appeal before the commissioner of the state’s Kumaon division, who is also the chairperson of the District Level Development Authority. However, this appeal was also dismissed.

On December 9, authorities from the District Level Development Authority visited Usman’s house and warned his family members to vacate the house within three days, The Indian Express reported.

Subsequently, Usman’s wife moved the High Court.

In her petition in the High Court, Usman’s wife noted that the District Level Development Authority had issued a notice ordering them to vacate the home with an intention to demolish it, PTI reported.

Her counsel said that several other houses were also alleged to be illegally constructed in the same area and asked why only Usman’s home was being targeted.

She also alleged that the District Level Development Authority was acting with vengeance and malice under “pressure of various groups” as no notice was issued to her husband before the case was filed against him, The Indian Express reported.

On the other hand, the District Level Development Authority told the High Court that proper action was being taken against encroachments and that it was complying with the directions of the Supreme Court, PTI reported.

Noting that the area was forest land, the authority alleged that a notice had already been issued to the accused earlier but he did not possess any valid documents.