New Delhi. The Supreme Court has taken cognizance on Thursday on the matter of people falling into the house without following the legal process in Prayagraj, UP. The court has reprimanded the officials. The court has criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing the houses of a lawyer, a professor and three other people in Prayagraj.

Read:- Supreme Court's big decision regarding live in relation, women who have been together for a long time can not be accused of rape

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotishwar Singh expressed strong disagreement, saying that such action sets a shocking and wrong example. Justice Oka said that “There is also something called Article 21. Justice Oka also drew attention to the recent decision of the Supreme Court, which has determined the process adopted before demolition.

The state will have to reconstruct with its money: Court

Justice Oka, while criticizing the state sharply, said that the court will now order the state to rebuild the demolished structures. Justice Oka said, “Now we order you to rebuild at your expense, this is the only way to do so.

What did the petitioner say in court?

Read:- SC Historic Decision: Historical decision of Supreme Court, blind people will also be able to become judges; This old rule canceled

Explain that the petitioner, advocate Zulfikar Haider, Professor Ali Ahmed, two widows and another person knocked on the court after the Allahabad High Court dismissed his petition against the demolition.

He alleged that the officials issued a notice to demolish their houses late on Saturday night and demolished their homes the next day, which gave them no chance to challenge action. He has also argued that he was a valid lease of land and applied to convert his lease rights into freehold assets. The petitioners' counsel argued that the state wrongly linked their land to gangster-royal Atik Ahmed, who was murdered in 2023.

Government gave this argument

Attorney General R Venkatramani defended the state's action, stating that the petitioners had enough time to respond to the notice. However, Justice Oka questioned the manner of sending the notice. The bench pointed to the discrepancies in the state claim on the way the notice is sent. During this, the Attorney General demanded a transfer to the High Court. The Attorney General said that I am not defending the demolition, but let the High Court consider it, but the court rejected the demand.

Read:- Union carbide garbage starts burning in Pithampur, now continuous process will run for 74 hours