New Delhi: In a stern warning to civic authorities who demolish structures without following due process, the Supreme Court Tuesday imposed a fine of Rs 60 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government for contravening its own law on demolitions when it had pulled down six structures in Prayagraj in 2021.
A bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka set aside six demolition notices, after it concluded they violated the procedure enumerated under section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and directed the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) to pay Rs 10 lakh each to the petitioners as compensation.
While doing so, the bench also underlined a significant requirement that must be met by civic bodies before they raze alleged illegal structures.
It said demolition notices must be served personally to the individual residing in the premises identified as unauthorised. Mere affixation of the notice on the premises was not a valid ground to go ahead with demolition. “The affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” the bench observed, while disposing of six petitions that challenged the Allahabad High Court order, which declined them relief.
The high court had dismissed the petitions, accepting the state’s argument that the lease signed between the residents and PDA had expired in 1996, and their freehold applications too were rejected in 2015 and 2019.
The top court, however, did not comment on the ownership rights over the land and left it to the parties to contest it before a court with appropriate jurisdiction.
Restricting its adjudication to the procedural irregularity, the bench said: “These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished…There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process.”
“We will record the whole thing as illegal, and fix compensation of Rs 10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” remarked the court, before it dictated the formal order.
Also Read: In Varanasi, demolition drive spurs row with ‘headbutting’ official, ‘religious targeting’ claim
What petitioners argued
Challenging Allahabad HC’s order dated 8 March, 2021, the six individuals from Prayagraj had approached the top court on 12 April, 2021.
They claimed the high court rejected their plea against the unfair demolition exercise without giving them a fair opportunity to defend their case. The dismissal order, they contended, was based on the grounds that were not even a part of the demolition notice.
Demolition notices, they said, were served on 6 March, 2021, at 6.30 pm and on the next day partial demolition was carried out. This haste was in the teeth of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 as well as the UP (Regulation of Building and Operations) Act, 1958, which provides an alternate remedy of appeal before the competent authority.
Since the demolition was carried out immediately a day after they were served the notice, the petitioners argued in the top court that they could not avail the alternative remedy.
Another grievance against the high court order was that it had, while dismissing the plea against demolition, virtually decided the title over the land as well.
The petitioners also disputed the claim made in the 6 March, 2021 notice that they were informed about the unauthorised construction through a notice sent to them on 8 January, 2021. They denied receiving any such notice in the top court. The 8 January, 2021 notice apparently talked about a proposed demolition exercise at the site on 27 January, 2021.
The appeal also submitted that the demolitions were part of the exercise undertaken to raze all properties of gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed. However, none of the properties affected by the illegal state action belonged to Ahmed, the appeal asserted.
SC interprets section 43 of 1973 Act
During the hearing, the UP government informed the court that the first show-cause notice was issued on 18 December, 2020.
This was under section 27 of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Section 27 of the 1973 state law governs demolition of illegal buildings in Uttar Pradesh. Sub-section 1 of this section states that if a building is constructed in violation of the masterplan or without approvals, the development authority may order its demolition after providing the owner with a reasonable opportunity to show cause.
The proviso makes it compulsory for the authorities to serve notice on the affected persons before carrying out the demolition.
Records placed before the court showed that a subsequent demolition notice was sent to the petitioners on 8 January, 2021. However, the same too was affixed and was not sent by registered post. The only notice made available to the residents was the one sent on 6 March, 2021.
But without giving them ample time, thereafter, the authorities demolished their properties a day later.
The top court pulled up the authorities for violating petitioners’ Article 21 rights with their illegal action. Upon perusing the 1973 law, it said: “The object of the proviso of section 27(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before demolition. This is no way of granting a reasonable opportunity,” the court noted in its order.
Though the Supreme Court referred to its November 2024 judgement that issued a slew of guidelines for authorities that carry demolitions, it did not consider the same in the context of the present case because the demolition here happened prior to the verdict.
It went on to interpret section 43 of the 1973 Act, which governs the service of notice. Section 43 states that if a person to whom a notice is addressed is not found at the premises, then the notice should be affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business or should be tendered to an adult member of the family or office. This section also allows the option to send the notice by registered post.
The court opined that under section 43(2) of the 1973 Act, genuine efforts must be made to serve notice to the person before affixing it.
“When the provision talks about a person who cannot be found, it is obvious that genuine efforts are required to be made for affecting service in person. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the house and affixes it after finding on that day the person concerned is not available,” the order said.
“It is obvious that repeated efforts have to be made to make personal service. Only if those efforts fail then there are two options available. One is of affixing and second is of sending by registered post,” added the court. The bench directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to “scrupulously” follow the 2024 SC guidelines on demolition in future.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: ‘Police found no evidence, still razed our homes,’ say kin of 11 booked for cow trade in MP’s Mandla
Illegal demolitions in Prayagraj were supposed to be stopped by judges a long time back. Thank god, it’s happening now.
This is the height of judicial overreach. Judicial activism seems to have crossed all limits. It’s time the executive branch asserts itself and makes sure that idiots like this Oka fellow understand the Constitutional limits placed on the judiciary. The judiciary cannot and must not encroach upon the domains of the executive.
The best way to answer this reprehensible and idiotic judgement of the Supreme Court would be to demolish the bungalows of the “honourable” judges who gave this verdict.
Who knows how many crores worth of cash we will come across.