'You Can't Bulldoze Houses Overnight' : Supreme Court Directs UP Govt To Pay Rs 25 Lakhs Interim Compensation For Illegal Demolition

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 6) came down heavily on the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the illegal demolition of residential houses for a road widening project.

The Court was hearing a suo motu writ petition registered in 2020 based on a letter complaint sent by Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, whose house in District Maharajganj was demolished in 2019.

During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expressed serious dissatisfaction with the conduct of the authorities, terming their acts "high-handed."

Responding to the State's argument that the petitioner had encroached public land, CJI Chandrachud said :

"You say that he was an encroacher of 3.7 sq meters. We take it, we are not giving him a certificate for it. But how can you start demolishing people's houses like that? This is lawlessness..walking into somebody's house and demolishing it without notice."

Flagging that no notice was served and no due process was followed, CJI added : 

"This is completely high-handed! Where is the due process followed? We have the affidavit that says no notice was issued, you only went to the site and informed the people through loudspeaker."

The bench was informed that 123 other constructions were also demolished and people were just given information through public announcements.

"This is very high-handed," Justice Pardiwala observed. "You can't come with bulldozers and demolish houses overnight. You don't give time to family to vacate. What about the household articles? There has to be due process followed," Justice Pardiwala added.

Justice Pardiwala also expressed disapproval of the authorities giving notice only through a Public Announcement and the beat of the drum.

"You can't just with a beat of drum tell people to vacate houses and demolish them. There has to be proper notice".

The bench relied on a report of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that at the highest, there was an encroachment of 3.70 square meters but it was not a justification to demolish the entire house. NHRC recommended the grant of interim compensation to the petitioner, registration of FIR on the complaint of the petitioner and initiation of departmental/punitive action against the officers.

The Court noted that there was no enquiry carried out by the authorities to demarcate the encroachments. Also, there was no material to show that the land was acquired before the demolitions were carried out.

The State has failed to disclose the precise extent of encroachment, the width of the existing road, the width of the notified highway, the extent of the property of the petitioner which fell within the notified width of the central line of the highway, the Court noted. The Court also wondered why the demolition was carried out beyond the alleged encroachment. 

"It is clear that the demolition was completely highhanded and without the authority of law," the bench noted in its order.

The petitioner had an allegation that the demolition was a reprisal in response to a report he published in a local newspaper about the wrongdoings of the authorities. The bench did not express any observation on this allegation.

The Court therefore directed the State to pay punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to the petitioner. This compensation is of an interim nature and would not come in the way of the petitioner adopting other legal proceedings for compensation.

The Court further directed the Chief Secretary of UP to conduct an enquiry against all officers and contractors who were responsible for the illegal demolitions and initiate disciplinary actions. The Court clarified that the State is also at liberty to initiate criminal action against the persons responsible for the illegal actions.  The directions have to be complied within one month.

The judgment also laid down the steps the State authorities must follow before removing encroachments for road widening projects. The copy of the judgment was directed to be circulated to all States/Union Territories.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar appeared for the petitioner along with Advocate Shubham Kulshreshtha.

In the final uploaded judgment, the Court also included certain strong observations denouncing "bulldozer justice."

Case : IN RE MANOJ TIBREWAL AKASH  W.P.(C) No. 1294/2020

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 878