{"id":8879,"date":"2026-05-26T07:58:03","date_gmt":"2026-05-26T07:58:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/?p=8879"},"modified":"2026-05-26T08:08:05","modified_gmt":"2026-05-26T08:08:05","slug":"sc-halts-rajasthan-bulldozer-action-questions-high-courts-removal-of-stay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/sc-halts-rajasthan-bulldozer-action-questions-high-courts-removal-of-stay\/","title":{"rendered":"SC Halts Rajasthan Bulldozer Action, Questions High Court\u2019s Removal of Stay"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>New Delhi\/Jaipur<\/strong>: The Supreme Court has stepped in to stop the Rajasthan government\u2019s ongoing bulldozer demolition drive in Jaipur\u2019s Shri Ram Colony, saying that the Rajasthan High Court appeared to have acted too hastily in removing an earlier stay order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a petition filed by the Shri Ram Colony Vikas Samiti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute relates to alleged illegal constructions in Shri Ram Colony, where the local administration had started a demolition campaign. According to the petitioners, the Rajasthan High Court had earlier granted a stay on the demolitions, but later removed that protection while hearing an impleadment application. After the stay was lifted, authorities quickly began demolishing structures in the area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During the hearing, the Supreme Court was informed that several buildings had already been demolished and around 10 more structures were still facing demolition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court immediately intervened and ordered that no further structures should be demolished for now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The bench observed that, at first glance (\u201cprima facie\u201d), the High Court\u2019s decision to remove the stay order did not appear proper. Because of that decision, the administration went ahead with the demolition drive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, the Supreme Court also clarified that it was not giving any final opinion on the actual legality of the constructions or the merits of the case. It said that the pending special appeal before the Rajasthan High Court should be decided according to law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court further stated that its interim protection order \u2014 stopping further demolitions \u2014 will remain in force until the High Court decides the special appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At the same time, the court said that if any party wants the stay to be vacated, the High Court is free to hear all sides and pass an appropriate order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, the Supreme Court directed the Rajasthan government\u2019s lawyer to immediately inform the concerned authorities so that the order is followed without delay.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>New Delhi\/Jaipur: The Supreme Court has stepped in to stop the Rajasthan government\u2019s ongoing bulldozer demolition drive in Jaipur\u2019s Shri Ram Colony, saying that the Rajasthan High Court appeared to have acted too hastily in removing an earlier stay order. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a petition &#8230; <a title=\"SC Halts Rajasthan Bulldozer Action, Questions High Court\u2019s Removal of Stay\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/sc-halts-rajasthan-bulldozer-action-questions-high-courts-removal-of-stay\/\" aria-label=\"Read more about SC Halts Rajasthan Bulldozer Action, Questions High Court\u2019s Removal of Stay\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8882,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-supreme-court","category-top-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8879"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8879\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8881,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8879\/revisions\/8881"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8882"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}