Can an omnibus order be passed against illegal encroachments, asks SC

New Delhi [India], July 13 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked whether or not an omnibus order can be passed to restrain the authorities from taking action against illegal encroachments or not.
"If under the Municipal law the construction is unauthorized, can an omnibus order be passed to restrain authorities," the top court remarked.
A bench of justices BR Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, who was hearing petitions challenging the demolition drive, listed the matter for August 10 and also issued the notice to other respondent parties connected to the matter related to other states.
One of the pleas filed by Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind has sought directions to the Uttar Pradesh authorities to ensure that no further demolitions of properties are carried out in the State without following due process.
Citing news reports relating to demolition, senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the petitioners, called the matter "extremely serious".
Dave raised concern about such culture and said that the authorities have to act in accordance with the law. "Demolition of houses merely because somebody is accused of a crime is not acceptable in our society. We are governed by the rule of law," he said.
Countering his remark, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised objections with the locus of the petitioners and apprised the SC that "replies have been filed by the authorities that procedure was followed, notices were issued to the concerned and the process started much before the riots." He also urged not to create sensationalizing hype unnecessarily.
Advocate Dave further submitted the entire Sainik Farm is illegal and nobody has touched it. He said that selective action is taken.
Earlier Uttar Pradesh Government had informed the Supreme Court that recent demolitions of properties carried out in the state were done following due process and were in no way related to action taken against the persons accused of rioting. The government has taken action against rioters as per a different set of statutes, the Uttar Pradesh government stated.
"It was only after due service and providing adequate opportunity under Section 27 of the Act that the illegal construction was demolished by the Prayagraj Development Authority on June 12 after following due process of law and the same had no relation to the incident of rioting," UP Govt submitted.
The UP government's submission came in an affidavit filed in response to Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind's application against the recent demolition drive in the state. Uttar Pradesh government, in its affidavit, urged the Court to dismiss the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind application saying, "it is without merit."
Blaming the petitioner for cherry-picking including one instance of demolition of the house of one Javed Mohammed in Prayagraj, UP Government further stated that the process against that alleged unauthorised construction was initiated much before the incidents of rioting.
Uttar Pradesh government through an affidavit stated, "in so far as taking action against the persons accused in rioting, the State government is taking stringent steps against them in accordance with a completely different set of statutes."
UP govt has also apprised the top court that recent demolitions have been carried out by the Local Development Authorities, which are statutory autonomous bodies, independent of the State administration, as per law as part of their routine effort against unauthorised/illegal constructions and encroachments, in accordance with the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1972.
Uttar Pradesh Government has taken strong exception to the attempt by the petitioner Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind to name the highest constitutional functionaries of the State and falsely colour the local development Authority's lawful actions strictly complying with the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, as "extra-legal punitive measures" against the accused persons, targeting any particular religious community.
Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind had filed an application seeking to issue directions to the State of Uttar Pradesh that no precipitative action be taken in the state against the residential or commercial property of any accused in any criminal proceedings as an extra-legal punitive measure.
The application by the organization Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind had also urged the Court that any demolition drive that the authorities are planning to carry out in Kanpur District should stay during the pendency of the instant writ petition.