Supreme Court Rejects Contempt Petition Alleging Illegal Demolition, Says 'Would've Entertained If Sanction Plan Was Shown'

Asking a petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court, the Supreme Court today refused to entertain another contempt petition alleging violation of its judgment dated November 13, 2024 restraining demolition actions across the country without prior notice and opportunity of hearing.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, stating, "we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petitioner, if aggrieved, can very well approach the jurisdictional High Court".

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Gavai probed as to why the petitioner approached the top Court directly when liberty has been granted in the November judgment to approach the concerned High Court. The petitioner's counsel defended the same by pointing out a view taken by the jurisdictional High Court in a batch of petitions relating to demolition actions taking place at some distance from the petitioner's property. "I am completely clear of this batch, but the fact of the matter is that this order stares me in the face today...once the High Court has taken the view...I have no other remedy but to approach my Lords", he said.

The counsel further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land, with a registered sale deed in his favor, who only put up a tin shed at the property. Regardless, the demolition action was carried out only with 1 day's notice, wherein the nature of violation was not specified.

Hearing him, Justice Gavai asked that the Court be shown the sanction plan. However, as the counsel said that he would have to take instructions on that, the bench refused to entertain the petition. "Had you shown us the sanction plan, we would have entertained," said Justice Gavai.

Although protection for some time was sought by the counsel to take necessary steps, the bench declined to pass any direction.

Notably, prior to this, the top Court disposed of a contempt petition filed against UP authorities for alleged violation of the November judgment, while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach Allahabad High Court. A bench led by Justice Gavai orally remarked that the Court had issued all necessary directions in its November judgment itself, including that aggrieved persons shall be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Courts.

In another contempt matter, however, the Court recently issued notice to Uttar Pradesh authorities for alleged violation of the November judgment and ordered stay on further demolition. In this case, there was an SDM report on record stating that the subject construction was in accordance with sanction plan and the construction which was found to be non-sanctioned was removed by the petitioners themselves.

Supreme Court judgement alleged to have been violated

On November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime. A set of guidelines - to be followed before demolition - were issued by the Court. These included -

(i) No demolition should be carried out without prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided in the local municipal laws or within 15 days time from the date of service, whichever is later.

(ii) Designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the aggrieved party. The minutes of such a hearing shall be recorded. The final order of authority shall contain contentions of noticee, the findings of the authority and reasons, as to whether the unauthorized construction is compoundable, and whether the whole construction is to be demolished. The order should specify why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available.

(iii) After the orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before the appropriate forum.

The Court also held that violation of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to prosecution. If a demolition is found to be in violation of the orders of the Court, the officers responsible will be held liable for restitution of the demolished property at their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.

Further, the Court clarified that that the directions would not be applicable if the unauthorized structure was in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway lines or any river body or water body and also in cases where there is an order passed by a Court of law.

Case Title: VIKAS MAMANCHAND GOYAL Versus SHEKHAR SINGH AND ANR., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 60/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 295/2022