SC orders ₹50 lakh compensation for arbitrary demolitions

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) to pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh each for demolishing five residential structures in March 2021, denouncing the demolitions as “inhuman”, “shocking”, and a blatant violation of the “right to shelter” and “due process”.

The state authorities had wrongly linked the land to slain gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, leading the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan to castigate the civic body’s actions as “illegal” and directing it to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court’s November 2024 ruling, which laid down nationwide guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions.

“These cases shock our conscience…There is something called right to shelter, something called due process,” observed the bench, adding that the affected residents were deprived of their right to challenge the demolition orders because of “high-handedness” by the civil body.

The Supreme Court expressed its deep dissatisfaction with the manner in which the demolitions of houses belonging to advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows, and another individual were carried out. The notices were served improperly, with authorities merely affixing them to the structures rather than making genuine attempts to deliver them in person, as required under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

The bench expressed shock at the state’s conduct, highlighting that the houses were demolished within 24 hours of serving notices, depriving the occupants of any opportunity to challenge the action, as it went ahead to impose exemplary damages on the authority.

“Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of ₹10 lakh each to the appellants,” it said.

Earlier, during a March 24 hearing, the top court had expressed shock at the demolitions and had considered allowing the petitioners to reconstruct their homes at their own cost, subject to an undertaking. However, on Tuesday, the petitioners’ counsel stated that they lacked the financial means to rebuild. This prompted the court to order monetary compensation instead.

“Considering the inhumane and illegal approach of the development authority, we further direct it to scrupulously follow the decision of this court in “Re: Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures”, rendered in November 2024,” ordered the bench.

The Supreme Court had in November 2024 laid down nationwide guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions by state authorities, marking a significant moment in the battle against what has come to be known as “bulldozer justice”-- the practice of razing the properties of people accused of crimes, and, sometimes, of their families, often using earthmovers or bulldozers, without following due process.

No demolition, it ruled, should be carried out without prior notice. This show-cause notice must give at least 15 days for the occupant to respond, and it must be served through registered post, as well as affixed prominently on the structure in question. The court required the notice to specify the nature of the alleged violation, grounds for the demolition, and a list of documents required in defence.

In addition, each affected party is to receive an opportunity for a personal hearing with the designated authority before any final demolition order. Furthermore, any demolition order, once finalised, must be held for an additional 15 days to allow the occupant to challenge the decision or arrange to vacate.

The petitioners in this case approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad high court dismissed their plea against the demolitions. They alleged that the authorities issued demolition notices late on a Saturday night and razed their homes the next day, denying them any opportunity to contest the action. Their counsel argued that the state wrongly demolished the houses thinking that land belonged to Ahmed, who was killed in 2023 in a police encounter.

The state government, represented by attorney general R Venkataramani, defended the demolitions, arguing that the structures were part of large-scale illegal occupations and that notices had been issued in December 2020. However, the bench was unconvinced, finding serious procedural lapses and rejecting the argument that alternative accommodations negated the requirement for due process.

“Carrying out demolition in such a manner shows insensitivity on the part of the statutory authority,” held the bench, emphasising further that “authorities, especially the development authorities, must remember that the right to shelter is also an integral part of article 21 of the Constitution.”

The bench recorded in its order that the show-cause notice was issued on December 18, 2020, but merely affixed on the property the same day. Despite claims by the Authority that service attempts were made, the court found the procedure deeply flawed. The demolition order was passed on January 8, 2021, but was not duly served. The final notice, sent by registered post, was received by the residents only on March 6, 2021—just a day before their homes were razed on March 7.

“The object of the pertinent legal provision is that reasonable opportunity to show cause should be granted to the person whose structure is sought to be demolished. This is no way of granting reasonable opportunity,” held the bench.

It also allowed the petitioners to pursue appropriate legal recourses for establishing their title and interest in respect of the properties, which the state claims to be government-owned. The petitioners have maintained that they were not trespassers but lessees who had applied for conversion of their leasehold interest into freehold. The Allahabad high court had earlier upheld the demolitions, noting that the land in question was a Nazul Plot in Prayagraj, leased in 1906, with the lease expiring in 1996. It further pointed out that the petitioners’ applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019.