SC directs to maintain status quo on Assam's Sonapur demolition drive

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed to maintain status quo on Assam's Sonapur demolition drive and issued notice to authorities concerned.
This development comes after over 40 residents of the Sonapur area of Assam filed a contempt petition alleging wilful violation of the top court's interim order dated September 17 pausing the demolition practice across the country without prior permission.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appeared for the petitioners in the matter. A bench of justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan issued notice to the Assam Government and others on the petition seeking contempt proceedings against the local authorities for violating the top court's earlier order.
"Issue notice. In the meantime, parties to maintain the status quo," the top court said.
Over 40 residents of Assam's Sonapur area moved the top court, alleging wilful violation of the court's interim order dated September 17, 2024, directing that no demolition should take place across the country without prior permission as the local authorities have begun an eviction drive in the state's Kachutoli village.
In the plea filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, the petitioners sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors for committing gross deliberate and wilful contempt of the top court for deliberate and wilful violation of the top court's earlier order.
On September 17, the top court, in an interim measure, ordered that till the next date of hearing, it is directed that there shall be no demolition anywhere across the country without seeking permission of this Court. The top court also clarified that the order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place, such as a road, street, footpath, abutting railway line, or any river body or water bodies, and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law.
The petitioner said that concerned authorities have not followed the order passed by the court for the event of eviction and have flagged or put up red coloured stickers on the walls of the petitioners without sending any kind of notice or letter stating the issue of eviction or demolition.
The petitioners, including Faruk Ahmed, along with others, said that they have been residing in the said villages of Kachutoli Pathar, Kachutoli, and Kachutoli revenue village under Sonapur mouza in the district of Kamrup Metro for many years.
Further, the petitioners stated that they have been residing in the said lands by virtue of a deed of power of attorney that has been executed in their name by the original pattadars of the said lands.
The petitioners said that they are not the owners of the said lands, and they do not have any ownership rights but are enjoying occupation and residing over the said lands by virtue of the power of attorney document, which is a legally valid process, the petitioner said. They cited Gauhati High Court's order dated September 20, 2024, whereby Advocate General gives an undertaking to that effect that no action would be taken against the petitioners till the representations are disposed of in the manner directed by the Supreme Court in the order dated February 3, 2020.
"However, here in the present case, the respondent-authorities have not followed the order passed by the court for event of eviction and have flagged or put up red sticker on the walls of the petitioners without sending any kind of notice or letter stating issue of eviction or demolition," the petitioner said.
The petitioners claimed that they have been residing in the said scheduled lands for around last seven, eight decades since generations, but they have never engaged
in any disputes or clash with the Tribal or protected people living in the adjoining areas. They have been living peacefully and through proper relationship with people belonging to all the communities, whether it be social or trade relationship. There have never been any protests or revolts, the petitioners stated.
However, the government authority, without any prior notice to the petitioner, has started the process of eviction and has put up marks in the walls of the dwelling house of the petitioner, which would be evicted/demolished without any notice, the petition mentioned.
The petitioners submitted that contrary to the allegations and assertions of the District Administration authorities that the petitioners are illegal occupiers and encroachers of the lands of the tribals or the protected class, they have been residing in the lands wherein they have been allowed to live by the actual pattadars, and in many of the cases the actual pattadars have been from people belonging to the protected class who allowed the petitioners to stay in their lands by building houses after execution of power of attorney.
However, the said lands were not sold to the petitioners, and neither the petitioners ever asserted any ownership or possession right over the said lands.
"They have been the residents of the said scheduled lands since around 1950s through government-granted patta way before the Tribal Belt was formed. Neither the petitioners nor the tribal people have gotten their lands by way of transfer. Apart from that, the petitioners beg to mention an important aspect that there has not been proper demarcation of the tribal belt areas," the petition said.
The petitioners said they and their forefathers were the registered pattadars of their scheduled lands way before the 1950s, when the aforesaid scheduled land was first included under the tribal belt.