What was the disaster that the lawyer’s house was demolished : High Court

Prayagraj:

Allahabad High Court has expressed displeasure over the action of Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) and has  called an explanation from the Prayagraj Devlopment Authority (PDA) officials  that what was the problem that the case was on hearing and the house was demolished.

The  High Court has sought complete details in this case from the PDA on Tuesday. The court has also expressed displeasure over the action of PDA for demolition of an advocate’s house located in Jhunsi Andawa. This order has been given by the division bench of Chief Justice Mr. Justice Pritinkar Diwakar and Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar while hearing the petition of Rajbahadur and four others.

Before the hearing started in the court, High Court Bar Association President Ashok Singh expressed his displeasure over this action of PDA officials and termed the action as collusion with the builders.

They also alleged that a two-bigha plot behind the land of the advocate whose house was demolished belongs to a builder. PDA officials demolished this house to make way for it. PDA said t he action has been taken as per rules

Usually when PDA demolishes someone’s house, the front part of that house is demolished but the entire house of the advocate was demolished. There are more houses built at that place but the PDA did not take action against anyoneelse. The nature of the land of those houses is also the same as that of the advocate’s house.

Advocate Anup Trivedi, appearing on behalf of PDA, said that the petitioner had got the construction done in 2017. Notice was given by PDA. The petitioner filed an appeal with the Divisional Commissioner.

The appeal was rejected. After this, when he came to the High Court, the court asked him to show the ownership documents, but the petitioner was still not able to show the documents.On this the court asked why the house was demolished a day before the case was on hearing.

On this, PDA said that this was a routine action. But, the court did not accept this argument and called for complete details on Tuesday.