'Shocks Our Conscience' : Supreme Court Asks UP Authority To Pay Rs 60 Lakh Compensation For Illegal Demolition Of Houses

The Supreme Court has directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay Rs. 10 lakh each in compensation to six individuals whose houses were illegally demolished, calling the action “inhumane and illegal.”

“The authorities and especially the development authority must remember that the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India…Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants.”

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the demolition was carried out in violation of due process and the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished in the matter which we have discussed in detail”, the Court recorded.

“This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process,” Justice Oka observed during the hearing.

The Court recorded its disapproval of the manner in which demolition notices were served, stating that merely affixing them was not sufficient.

“This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” Justice Oka further remarked, referring to the authorities' practice of affixing notices rather than serving them in person or by registered post.

The Court found that the show-cause notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was issued on December 18, 2020, and affixed the same day, with the remark that two attempts had been made to serve it in person.

Section 27 governs the demolition of unauthorized structures. Section 27(1) states that if a building is constructed in violation of the Master Plan or without proper approvals, the development authority may order its demolition after providing the owner with a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The proviso mandates that no demolition order shall be issued without first serving notice on the affected persons.

A subsequent order of demolition dated January 8, 2021, was also affixed but not sent by registered post. The first registered post communication was sent on March 1, 2021, received on March 6, 2021, and the demolition was carried out the next day, leaving the appellants with no opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act.

“The object of the proviso to Section 27(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before demolition. This is no way of granting a reasonable opportunity,” the order stated.

The Court noted that law has been laid down in 2024 on the manner of service of notice in the case of In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures. However, as the demolition was of 2021, the Court interpreted Section 43 of the UP Planning Act, which governs the service of notice. It provides that if a person to whom notice is addressed cannot be found it will be affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business or it should be tendered to some adult member office family. There is also an option provided to send the document by registered post.

The Court held that section 43(2)(b) requires genuine efforts to serve notice in person before resorting to affixture. “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 that on that day the person concerned is not available. 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,” the Court observed.

Earlier, on March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court had considered allowing the appellants to reconstruct their homes, provided they gave an undertaking that if their appeals were dismissed, they would demolish the structures at their own cost.

Today, the Counsel for appellants submitted that they lacked the financial means to reconstruct their homes and sought compensation.

The Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani opposed the request, contending that the affected individuals had alternate accommodations. However, the Court did not accept this argument as a justification for denying due process.

Justice Oka remarked that compensation was the only way to hold the authorities accountable. “We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation of ₹10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” he said.

The Supreme Court clarified that it has commented on the appellants' rights over the land. “It is open to the appellants to file appropriate proceedings for establishing their title and interest in respect of the subject property,” the Court stated.

The Court directed the Prayagraj Planning Authority to “scrupulously follow” the directions in the case of In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, which laid down guidelines for serving notices and carrying out demolitions, in the future.

Previously, the petitioners had claimed that the State had wrongly linked their properties to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023. They contended that the demolition was carried out without proper notice. The Uttar Pradesh government, on the other hand, argued that the structures were unauthorized, and the occupants had overstayed their leases.

The Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed the petitioners' challenge, accepting the State's argument that their lease had expired in 1996, and their freehold applications were rejected in 2015 and 2019.

Case no. – Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Case Title – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6466/2021