Nagpur High Court Questions Municipal Corporation Over Bulldozed Residence
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has raised a significant query to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) regarding the demolished house of Fahim Khan, the prime accused in the March 17 Nagpur riots. During a hearing on Thursday, the court explicitly asked whether the civic body intends to reconstruct the bulldozed property or provide monetary compensation to the affected party.
Background of the Case and Court's Observations
Communal violence had erupted in the Mahal area of Nagpur following alleged inflammatory remarks connected to Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb's tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode, while hearing a petition filed by Khan's 69-year-old mother, Mehrunissa Shamim Khan, and other accused, noted a prima facie failure to follow mandatory legal procedures established by the Supreme Court.
The bench directed the NMC to clearly state its position before the next hearing scheduled for March 4. The three-storied residence in Sanjaybagh Colony, belonging to 38-year-old Fahim Khan, who serves as the city president of the Minority Democratic Party, was demolished with bulldozers on March 25 last year, just days after his arrest.
Procedural Violations and Legal Arguments
During an urgent hearing on his mother's plea at the time, a bench led by Justice Nitin Sambre had stayed the demolition, but by then the structure was already razed. The court highlighted that the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court—which requires issuing prior notice and granting 15 days for a response before removing an allegedly unauthorized structure—was not followed.
"Prima facie, the demolition appears to be carried out without adhering to the mandated process," the bench verbally observed. Representing Khan, counsel Ashwin Ingole argued that the demolition notices issued on March 21, 2025, under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act violated the Supreme Court ruling from November 13, 2024.
That ruling, delivered by a bench led by former Chief Justice Bhushan Gavai, explicitly barred demolitions solely because a resident was accused in a criminal case. "The apex court categorically held that no property can be demolished merely because an individual related to the owner is an accused," Ingole contended, describing the civic action as "arbitrary and unconstitutional."
Property History and Previous Apology
The petitioner further submitted that the property had all required permissions and payments made to civic authorities as early as 2003, with no objections raised for over two decades, making the sudden demolition legally questionable. In a previous hearing last year, municipal commissioner Abhijeet Chaudhari had tendered an unconditional apology before the court, admitting that officials were unaware of the Supreme Court's safeguards regarding demolitions linked to criminal allegations.
Political Context and Current Status
Fahim Khan, who contested the 2024 Lok Sabha elections against Union minister Nitin Gadkari and secured approximately 1,000 votes, has maintained his innocence throughout, claiming the allegations were fabricated. Of the 120-odd individuals arrested in the riots case, a majority have been granted bail or anticipatory bail.
The High Court's inquiry into whether the NMC will rebuild the house or offer compensation underscores ongoing legal scrutiny over municipal actions and adherence to judicial protocols in sensitive cases.
