Lucknow Akbar Nagar Demolitions: Supreme Court Stops LDA From Demolishing Houses Till HC Verdict, Says Many Are Poor

The pleas were first mentioned yesterday before a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, with Senior Advocate S Muralidhar raising concerns about the hastiness with which the demolitions were carried out immediately after the high court's ruling. However, Justice Khanna noted that the special leave petition had not yet been placed before the court for consideration and asked the senior counsel to approach the court's registrar general for listing of the matters.

Subsequently, the request for an urgent hearing was forwarded to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. Meanwhile, the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed a caveat, seeking to be heard before formal issuance of notice. 

Bench orally insists on seven days' notice before demolishing residential properties 

Today, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta heard the petitions at 2 PM after an urgent mentioning.

In response to concerns over mass demolitions, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the State, today stated that only 23 commercial properties have been demolished by the Lucknow Development Authority.

“They put up all kinds of illegal commercial constructions on the riverbank without license or permission. It's admittedly government land. They challenged the demolition order, but was unsuccessful. Then filed an appeal, which was dismissed. All authorities have found that these are illegal constructions. Even they admit this. Out of the 24 commercial buildings with respect to which the high court passed its order, 23 have already been pulled down.”

Protesting, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, representing the petitioners, argued that houses were also being demolished along with commercial spaces. He explained, “There are some shops in the front, but there are people staying at the back. En masse demolitions are going on. Houses are also being demolished. I have been instructed to say this.”

“As far as commercial buildings are concerned, where notices have been given, you can proceed. But, as far as houses are concerned, you give them seven days' time,” Justice Khanna sternly instructed.

The judge also acknowledged the complexities of urban development and the challenges faced by marginalised communities who migrate to cities in search of economic opportunities. Notably, he also highlighted the gap between what is required and what is being offered by extant housing policies, in view of the urban pull factors.

“Let us be clear on housing. There's a difficulty. Our urbanisation policies have flaws. Really speaking, we have not provided for economically weaker sections. Somewhere, we will have to ensure…Everyone knows that migration takes place to the cities. But there is a huge gap in the policies between the requirements and what we are able to do at the ground-level. Unauthorised colonies are bound to come up. Take Delhi for instance. The Delhi Development Authority does not even know where 60-70% of the land is…All has been acquired.”

Saying this, he once again stressed the need for notice to be given before demolitions, which would allow residents to pursue legal remedy.

Demolition of commercial property stayed until March 4, petitioner allowed to collect belongings

With respect to the sole petitioner – one Vshnu Swaroop Chaurasia – who approached the top court against the proposed demolition of the last remaining commercial structure out of 24 such properties, the bench allowed him time till midnight on March 4 to remove his belongings. Following this, he could apply for alternate accommodation as per the LDA's scheme. The LDA was then permitted to demolish the properties, with a provision for the petitioners to retrieve their belongings after signing a list.

“This order would equally apply to other cases in case the parties are willing to abide by it. Provided they furnish an undertaking to the said effect to the Lucknow Development, the authority will provide an opportunity to the said occupant to enjoy the benefits of this order,” Justice Khanna added.

The bench also recorded ASG Nataraj's statement that even persons in occupation of these establishments who did not belong to the economically weaker section (EWS) could apply for alternative accommodation in terms of the LDA's policy for rehabilitation.

No demolition of houses until high court verdict is pronounced

Regarding another petition concerning the demolition of residential properties on government lands, Justice Khanna directed that no demolitions should proceed until the high court's judgment is pronounced. This second petition was filed by one Meena, against a high court division bench modifying an earlier stay order by a single judge bench to apply only to the litigants before the court. This matter is currently pending before the Allahabad High Court, which recently reserved its verdict.

To ASG Nataraj, the judge sternly said, “Many of them are poor people. Don't take any precipitative action. Wait till the high court judgment is pronounced.”

At this juncture, Alam raised concerns about a potential adverse ruling by the high court and requested the Supreme Court to issue a direction allowing petitioners time to file an appeal before any demolitions took place. Justice Khanna declined this request but assured that the Supreme Court's earlier order could be shown in case of an adverse judgment by the high court. In case that did not work, an application could be moved in the Supreme Court and it would intervene, Justice Khanna said.

Bench calls for humane approach, acknowledges government's failure to provide shelter

During the hearing, Justice Khanna notably called for a more humane approach with respect to rehabilitation. To ASG Raju, he said, “You will probably also have to provide some monetary benefit, as was done in the Delhi case.”

“There is a failing on the part of the government as well. A roof over your head, a shelter is a basic right. Land in almost all occasions is virtually with the government, there are very few private developments. Because of this, brand prices are very high...”

“They have encroached…especially on riverbeds,” ASG Nataraj pointed out.

“There's no other option,” the judge countered, “Why are there so many unauthorised colonies in Delhi? Because the Delhi Development Authority was not able to...We have to accept that. This cannot be ignored.”

Background

The legal battle began in December when residents of Akbar Nagar initially approached the Allahabad High Court against the LDA's demolition orders. The LDA cited illegal construction on Kukrail's riverbed and banks as the basis for the demolitions. In a setback to the petitioners, a division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, dismissed the their pleas. Following the high court's order, the LDA wasted no time in commencing the demolition process on Tuesday evening, targeting shops and other commercial buildings along Ayodhya Road in Akbar Nagar.

The high court's decision rested on the categorisation of the occupants into two groups: taxpayers and Below Poverty Line (BPL) cardholders. It found that the individuals had presented themselves as slum dwellers without providing accurate information. Upon reviewing the documents, the court determined that neither were the petitioners slum dwellers nor did their establishments fall within the designated slum area.

However, the petitioners have maintained that they are primarily poor people living in slums and hutments in Akbar Nagar, emphasising their inability to afford the substantial rehabilitation fees proposed by the city's development authority. The rehabilitation scheme requires a payment of Rs 5,000 as registration fees, followed by Rs 4,79,000, payable in instalments over ten years, for a flat in Basant Kunj Yojna of the LDA.

The petitions filed in the Supreme Court also highlight the challenges faced by residents in approaching the courts due to their financial constraints and lack of legal representation. They expressed concern that the demolitions, which began on February 26 and are set to continue, would not differentiate between those who have approached the courts and those who have not.

Click Here To Read/Download Order (Meena v. State of UP, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9265/2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Order (Vishnu Swaroop Chaurasia v. State of UP, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9433/2024)