SC slams UP’s arbitrary demolitions, orders home rebuilding

The Supreme Court on March 24 took an unprecedented stance against arbitrary demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, allowing residents of Prayagraj to rebuild their homes after the state government reportedly razed them without due process in March 2021. The structures were demolished after being wrongly linked to slain gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed shock at the state's actions, emphasizing that homes were bulldozed within 24 hours of issuing notices, depriving occupants of the right to challenge the move. The court categorically stated that it “cannot tolerate such a process,” warning that permitting such actions would set a dangerous precedent.

“It shocks the conscience of the court how, within 24 hours of the notice, it was done,” remarked the bench. “The state must act fairly and provide reasonable time for appeals before demolitions.”

The Court ruled that petitioners — advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows, and another individual — would be allowed to rebuild their homes at their own expense, subject to conditions.

“We will pass an order allowing them to reconstruct at their own cost. If the appeal fails, they must demolish at their own cost,” the bench stated. The petitioners must also submit an undertaking to file appeals within the stipulated time and refrain from creating third-party interests. The case has been adjourned to April 1 for submission of the required undertakings.

Supreme court’s stand against ‘bulldozer justice’

In November 2024, the Supreme Court laid down nationwide guidelines to curb the practice of “bulldozer justice”—demolishing properties of accused individuals, sometimes including their families, without due process. The ruling mandated that no demolition be carried out without prior notice, giving occupants at least 15 days to respond. Notices must be served through registered post and affixed prominently on the property, specifying the nature of the violation and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. Even after a final demolition order, a 15-day window must be provided to allow the occupant to challenge the decision or vacate voluntarily.

The petitioners’ battle for justice

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court dismissed their plea against the demolitions. They alleged that authorities issued demolition notices late on a Saturday night and carried out the razing the next day, giving them no opportunity to contest. Their counsel argued that the state wrongly demolished the homes under the mistaken belief that the land belonged to Ahmed, who was killed in a police encounter in 2023.

Defending the state’s actions, Attorney General R. Venkataramani contended that petitioners had received notices as early as December 2020, followed by subsequent notices in January and March 2021. “There was adequate due process,” he insisted, further arguing that the demolished structures were part of “large-scale illegal occupations beyond the lease period.”

However, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced, citing serious procedural lapses. The bench noted that the notices were improperly served, with only the final notice delivered through the legally recognized method—registered post. “The state cannot argue that since these individuals have alternative housing, they can bypass due process and deny them reasonable time to file an appeal against demolition,” the bench asserted.

The disputed land and legal wrangle

The petitioners maintained that they were lawful lessees seeking to convert their leasehold interest into freehold. They argued that their demolition notice was issued on March 1, 2021, served on March 6, and executed the next day—violating their statutory right to challenge under Section 27(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act. Among the affected individuals were 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 allowing the petitioners to contest it. The court found that the land was a Nazul Plot in Prayagraj, leased in 1906, with the lease expiring in 1996.

The petitioners’ applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019. The state maintained that the land was designated for public use and that the petitioners’ transactions lacked approval from the district collector, leaving them with no legal claim to the structures.

The Supreme Court’s latest intervention signals a firm stance against arbitrary demolitions and underscores the need for due process before displacing residents.