Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Reply Over Demolition Of A House 'Without Following Procedure Of Law'

A bench of Justice Prakash Padia directed the standing counsel appearing to file an affidavit of 'some senior officer' of the Revenue Department explaining under what circumstances, without following the procedure of law, the house in question was demolished.

Further, the court listed the matter for hearing next on September 18 and directed that the status quo on the spot be maintained until the Court hears the matter on that date.

Essentially, the house in question, belonging to one Sunil Kumar, was demolished by the state authorities 'immediately after' an order was passed against the Additional Collector (Land & Revenue) on July 22, 2024, under Section 67(5) UP Revenue Code 2006.

For context, Section 67 of the UP-Land Revenue Code, 2006, deals with cases where a particular property or piece of land entrusted initially to a Gram Panchayat or local authority is damaged, misappropriated, or occupied unlawfully by anyone.

In this case, a report was submitted to the Assistant Collector by the Lekhpal concerned, stating that the petitioner (Sunil Kumar) had constructed a house on the chakmarg (a public pathway).

Following the report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the UP-Revenue Code, 2006, asking him to explain why he should not be evicted and held liable for the alleged unauthorised construction.

The Assistant Collector found the petitioner's response to the said notice insufficient, and therefore, he directed the petitioner's eviction from the land in question under Section 67(3) of the Code.

Challenging this eviction order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector (Land & Revenue) under Section 67(5) of the Code. This provision provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector under sub-section (3) can appeal before the Collector.

In his appeal, the petitioner claimed that the Lekhpal had filed a false report concerning the land in question and that no unauthorized construction had occurred. He also contended that the land in question belonged to him.

However, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the state revenue department, the Additional Collector rejected his appeal and upheld the Assistant Collector's order, thereby affirming the petitioner's eviction from the property.

Soon after the said order was passed, his house was demolished by the state authorities.

In related news, the Supreme Court earlier this month expressed the intention to lay down pan-India guidelines to address the concerns that authorities in several States are resorting to the demolition of houses of persons accused of crimes as a punitive action.

In June 2022, the Top Court had asked the Uttar Pradesh government not to carry out demolition activities except following the procedure established by law.

Case title - Sunil Kumar vs. State Of Up And 3 Others