The Supreme Court on Monday proposed an unprecedented recourse against arbitrary demolitions by permitting the reconstruction of houses in Prayagraj that were razed by Uttar Pradesh authorities reportedly without due process in March 2021 after the state wrongly linked the land to slain gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed.
A bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed shock at the state’s conduct, highlighting that the homes were demolished within 24 hours of serving notices, depriving the occupants of any opportunity to challenge the action. The court made it clear that it “cannot tolerate such a process” and that permitting such actions in one case would set a dangerous precedent.
“It shocks the conscience of the court the manner in which, within 24 hours of the notice, it was done,” remarked the bench, noting the fundamental principle that “State must act very fairly; State must give reasonable time to enable them to file an appeal before the structures are demolished.”
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners — advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows, and another individual — would be allowed to rebuild their demolished houses at their own cost, with conditions.
The bench stated: “We will pass an order that they can reconstruct at their own cost, and if the appeal fails, then they will have to demolish at their own cost.” The petitioners must provide an undertaking that they will file appeals within the stipulated time, will not claim any equities over the land, and will not create third-party interests. The matter has been adjourned to April 1 to enable the petitioners to submit the required undertaking.
The Supreme Court in November 2024 laid down nationwide guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions by state authorities, marking a significant moment in the battle against what has come to be known as “bulldozer justice” — the practice of razing the properties of people accused of crimes, and, sometimes, of their families, often using earthmovers or bulldozers, without following due process. No demolition, it ruled, should be carried out without prior notice. This show-cause notice must give at least 15 days for the occupant to respond, and it must be served through registered post, as well as affixed prominently on the structure in question. The court required the notice to specify the nature of the alleged violation, grounds for the demolition, and a list of documents required in defence. In addition, each affected party is to receive an opportunity for a personal hearing with the designated authority before any final demolition order. Furthermore, any demolition order, once finalised, must be held for an additional 15 days to allow the occupant to challenge the decision or arrange to vacate.
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad high court dismissed their plea against the demolitions. They alleged that the authorities issued demolition notices late on a Saturday night and razed their homes the next day, denying them any opportunity to contest the action. Their counsel argued that the state wrongly demolished the houses thinking that land belonged to Ahmed, who was killed in 2023 in a police encounter.
Attorney general R Venkataramani, representing the state, defended the demolitions, contending that the petitioners received notices as early as December 8, 2020, followed by subsequent notices in January and March 2021. “Therefore, we cannot say that there is no adequate due process. There is adequate due process,” the AG insisted. He also argued that the demolished structures were part of “large-scale illegal occupations beyond the period of lease or rejection of applications for freehold”.
However, the bench was unconvinced by the state’s justifications. It pointed out serious procedural lapses, noting that notices were served improperly. “The notices were served by affixture, which is not the method approved by law. Only the last notice was served by the legally recognized method, service through registered post,” the bench observed.
It also rejected the AG’s contention that the case did not involve homeless individuals, as the petitioners had alternative accommodation. “The State cannot say that already these people have one more house, so we will not follow due process of law and will not allow them even reasonable time to file an appeal against demolition!” the bench said.
The petitioners have maintained that they were not trespassers but lessees who had applied for conversion of their leasehold interest into freehold. They argued that their demolition notice was issued on March 1, 2021, served on March 6, and executed on March 7 that year, depriving them of their statutory right to challenge it under Section 27(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act. Among those affected are a lawyer and a professor, the latter of whom lost an entire library in the demolition.
The Allahabad high court had upheld the demolitions, relying on a letter dated September 15, 2020, without affording the petitioners an opportunity to contest it. The high court found that the land in question was a Nazul Plot in Prayagraj, leased in 1906, with the lease expiring in 1996. It noted that the petitioners’ applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019. The state government maintained that the land was earmarked for public use, and since the petitioners’ transactions lacked the approval of the district collector, they had no legal rights over the structures.