The Delhi High Court on Wednesday orally asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) not to undertake any demolition against the homes of persons accused of the murder of a 26-year-old in Uttam Nagar during Holi celebrations.

Justice Amit Bansal also directed the petitioners to withdraw the current petition and file a fresh petition confining themselves to demolition action by MCD without delving into the police probe in the murder case.

"It is pointed out that averments in the petition are vague and a separate cause of action is made. The petitioners seek liberty to withdraw the petition and file a better one within a week," the Court directed.

Meanwhile, the MCD told the Court the houses of the petitioners were built after encroaching upon a public street and no notice is required to be served on the accused before resorting to demolition action.

"The demolition that took place is not (just) an unauthorised construction. They have encroached on the public street. It was not an isolated exercise. It was a routine exercise. He (the petitioner) has also encroached on the public street," the MCD said.

The MCD counsel said that the petitioner should be asked to state on affidavit that the houses in question are not on public street.

The MCD had on March 8 demolished certain "illegal portions" of a house linked to one of the accused in the murder 26-year-old Tarun Bhutolia during Holi celebrations on March 4.

The accused persons belong to Muslim community while the victim is a Hindu and the incident has assumed communal colour.

Justice Bansal was hearing petitions filed by Shahnaz and Jarina seeking protection against the demolition of their homes.

While Shahnaz is the mother of Sohel and Ayan (who have been interrogated by the police in the case), Jarina is the mother of co-accused Imran alias Banti.

It is their case that the MCD carried out the arbitrary demolition activity immediately after the FIR was registered. They apprehend that their homes may also be demolished as a punitive measure merely because they have been implicated in the criminal case.

"It is pertinent to note that the house in question [which has been demolished] was not built upon any public road or encroached government land, and several other houses exist in the same vicinity. The selective demolition of only one house strongly indicates malafide exercise of power by the authorities. Further, the authorities had themselves been collecting municipal revenue and electricity charges for several years, which clearly demonstrates that the property had been in recognized existence," said Jarina in her plea.

She added that the apprehended demolition would be in direct violation of the principles of natural justice, constitutional protections under Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution and the Supreme Court directions.

"The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures (2024) has categorically held that no demolition can be carried out without prior notice, opportunity of hearing, and adherence to statutory procedure, including minimum 15 days’ notice to the affected party. Any action by the municipal authorities in violation of these binding directions would therefore be arbitrary, illegal and liable to be restrained by this Hon’ble Court," the plea stated.

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Sanjay Poddar, appearing for MCD, told the Court that the demolished building stood on an encroached portion of a public street.

"Let him make a statement that his house is not on the public street. Let them file an affidavit," Poddar added.

"(Even) if you are of the view it is on a public street, then also you will (have to) issue a notice," the Court said.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma suggested that the petition should be confined only to MCD demolitions and should not concern itself with the police probe into the murder case.

"I will suggest this. Let a petition confining only to so called MCD violation be maintained. This petition in its present form is mischievous," it was argued.

"I will do that, but don't take any action. It can't be that I ask him to file a better petition, and in the meantime you remove everything," the Court said.

Poddar said that the law does not require service on notice on case of such encroachments.

"It makes no difference if it is removed or today or tomorrow. I am here. My lord may not record anything because they will misuse it. Let them make a statement that no portion of their house is on a public street and they have not encroached on drain," Poddar contended.

"Why the hesitation in giving the notice?" the Bench asked.

"Notice is not required. Supreme Court has said that when the law does not require notice... The law says I do not require to give notice," Poddar replied.

"How do these properties have municipal numbers then?" the Bench asked MCD.

The MCD counsel then proceeded to show certain photographs to the Court and

The counsel for the petitioners claimed that certain communal elements entered the house and caused damage.

It was also submitted that they have been receiving multiple threats of demolition.

"We have received multiple threats that our house will be demolished. The locks are broken. They (MCD) are saying commercial activity is taking place in the house. If that is true, give me a notice. I will reply to that," the petitioner's counsel stated.

"Even if there is a chemical factory (in the house), you (MCD) have to give a notice," the Bench maintained.

The Court eventually directed the petitioners to withdraw the present petition after noting that the prayers were vague.

"Till the time you move a fresh petition, they (MCD will not do anything," the Court told the petitioners.

The petitions were filed through advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh.