The Uttarakhand High Court on Saturday stayed an ongoing demolition drive against “encroachments” on water bodies and seasonal streams in Dehradun, warning that arbitrary action under the guise of court orders would not be tolerated, reported The Indian Express.

The court’s intervention came on urgent pleas from residents of slums in Vikasnagar who had received demolition notices on April 5, with razing operations beginning shortly afterwards. The matter had been previously scheduled for hearing on April 15.

Chief Justice G Narender said the state should have issued notices, conducted surveys and followed due process in the case. “All this is done to force the court to tie its own hands,” he said. “We won’t appreciate this conduct from the officials.”

The court was hearing three public interest litigations highlighting encroachments on water bodies and drains in Rajpur and Doon Valley. Another petition sought the removal of private encroachments on a rivulet and seasonal streams in Sahastradhara.

On Friday, an intervention application was filed on behalf of the residents of Vikasnagar, who said they had been served notices declaring their homes to be built on water bodies and earmarked for demolition. The applicants said they would submit ownership documents in court by April 15.

“The administration has started taking action against the properties without giving them an opportunity to being heard and verify their documents of title of the properties,” the application stated. “That the respondent administration has started taking coercive action against the applicants which is against the principle of natural justice.”

The court was informed that over 100 homes at the site had been allotted under government housing schemes such as the Indira Awas Yojana and the Prime Minister Awas Yojana.

To this, the chief justice responded: “If sites have been allotted under these schemes, then how do you justify your demolition? We will not burden the state exchequer; we will make the officers responsible and they will pay from their pockets. We will not allow such arbitrary actions under the cover of court orders.”

Narender also questioned how housing plots were allotted on river beds.

“We are a welfare state,” he said. “You admit the sites are allotted to them by the state… Who allotted the sites in the riverbed? Who is responsible for that? Don’t take any coercive action till April 15, convince the court and then proceed.”

During the previous hearing, the court had directed the state to install CCTV cameras and instructed the director general of police to ask station house officers to take action against anyone found dumping debris into water bodies.

Abhijay Negi, counsel for the original petitioner, said the only urgency raised was the filling of two streams with sand. “In the compliance report filed by the state, in these two sites, the river is being filled, and no one’s house is there…” he said.

Reading from the report, Negi stated: “Construction work is being carried out [on] land in the form of a drain in which various people have purchased land and constructed buildings. A concrete bridge is being constructed adjacent to the river on the spot for which no letter regarding permission has been submitted [by the proprietor]…The construction work of the bridge has been stopped by us [state government].”

The chief justice responded: “These kinds of activities you are not stopping…If they are privately building a bridge, demolish it immediately.”