The Supreme Court's stance on property demolitions distinguishes between legitimate exercises of state power and actions targeting vulnerable populations. Recent cases and guidelines highlight a commitment to due process and the protection of constitutional rights, while also acknowledging the state's authority to address illegal encroachments.
Several instances of property demolitions have raised concerns about the targeting of individuals accused of crimes or belonging to specific communities. In response, the Supreme Court has emphasized that demolitions cannot be used as a form of "bulldozer justice," where properties are razed without proper legal procedures simply because occupants are accused or convicted of crimes. The Court has stressed that such actions violate the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers, as guilt can only be determined by the judiciary.
To prevent abuses, the Supreme Court has established comprehensive guidelines for legal demolitions. These guidelines mandate that authorities provide adequate notice, typically at least 15 days, before any demolition. This notice period allows affected individuals the opportunity to challenge the demolition orders. The guidelines also emphasize due process requirements and impose accountability measures on officials involved in demolitions. Failure to comply with these rules can result in legal consequences for the officials, including potential liability for rebuilding the demolished properties.
However, the Supreme Court has clarified that the "shield" against bulldozers does not extend to all unauthorized constructions. Specifically, the Court has stated that it will not protect illegal structures on public roads, government lands, or forests. This distinction reflects a balancing act between protecting individual rights and upholding the state's responsibility to maintain public spaces and prevent illegal encroachment.
The issue of squatters and unauthorized settlements, particularly along riverbanks and other public spaces, presents a complex challenge. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right to housing as a fundamental constitutional right, it has also recognized the need to address river pollution and encroachment on public lands. In a case concerning settlements along the Bagmati River in Kathmandu Valley, the Supreme Court directed authorities to clear the settlements, but only after providing alternative housing for genuine squatters. This ruling underscores the importance of balancing eviction with humane relocation and rehabilitation efforts.
Notably, some argue for stricter measures against squatting, particularly by "professional squatters" and "squatting syndicates". These groups are often defined as those who illegally occupy properties for profit or other malicious purposes. Some legal frameworks allow for the summary eviction and demolition of structures occupied by such individuals, even without a court order, especially when the structures are built without necessary permits or violate existing laws. However, these actions must still comply with due process requirements and respect the rights of legitimate occupants.
Several states have also introduced or enacted legislation aimed at curbing squatting and clarifying property rights. These laws often establish criminal charges for squatting, expedite the removal process for unlawful occupants, and affirm that squatters are not considered tenants. While these measures target short-term squatting scenarios, they generally do not affect the long-established principles of adverse possession, where a person may acquire title to a property after occupying it for an extended period under certain conditions.
In South Carolina, for example, a squatter can claim adverse possession if they have occupied a property continuously for at least 10 years, without the owner's permission, and in an open and obvious manner. They must also treat the property as their own by maintaining it or making improvements. Meeting these strict requirements is essential for a squatter to gain legal ownership through adverse possession.
The Supreme Court's jurisprudence and recent legislative actions reflect an ongoing effort to balance the rights of property owners with the protection of vulnerable populations. While the "shield against bulldozers" does not apply to all unauthorized constructions, the state must still adhere to due process and ensure that demolitions are carried out legally and humanely. The rights of legitimate tenants and those facing eviction must be respected, and alternative housing or relocation assistance should be provided where appropriate.
