Introduction
In a landmark hearing, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing the houses of a lawyer, a professor, and three others in Prayagraj without following due legal procedures. The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed deep concern over the violation of natural justice principles, emphasizing that demolitions should not take place without providing sufficient time for response and legal recourse. The Court suggested reconstructing the demolished homes, subject to the case’s final outcome.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the demolition of five residential properties belonging to advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows, and another individual. The properties, situated on the same plot of land, were torn down hastily after a demolition notice was issued on the night of March 6, 2021. By the morning of March 7, 2021, the homes had been reduced to rubble, leaving the occupants without shelter or legal recourse.
The Allahabad High Court initially dismissed the petitioners’ plea challenging the demolition. The state government justified its actions by claiming that the properties were linked to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was assassinated in 2023. The petitioners, however, refuted these allegations, arguing that their land, a Nazul plot leased in 1906, had been occupied legally for decades.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Violation of Natural Justice
During the hearing, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government’s failure to follow legal procedures. The Bench remarked that it was “deeply disturbed” by the manner in which residential properties were demolished without granting the owners adequate time to respond.
The Court emphasized that any demolition should adhere to the principles of natural justice, allowing affected individuals the right to appeal and defend their properties. “It shocks our conscience how residential premises are demolished like this,” the Bench stated, making it clear that such actions would not be tolerated.
Lack of Proper Notice
The petitioners highlighted that they were not given a fair opportunity to challenge the demolition under Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, which provides for an appeal process before an authority. The Supreme Court scrutinized the manner in which the demolition notices were served.
The state government argued that notices had been issued in December 2020, January 2021, and March 2021, suggesting that the petitioners had ample time to respond. However, the Court found that most notices were merely affixed to the properties rather than being properly delivered via registered post. The Bench criticized this practice, stating,
“We’ve seen that instead of sending by post, it is served by affixing. Only the last notice was sent by registered post. Whenever it suits you, you will send by post… This is a design.”
The Court reaffirmed that affixation should be the last mode of service, not the primary method.
Potential Reconstruction of the Demolished Homes
One of the most significant aspects of the hearing was the Supreme Court’s consideration of directing the reconstruction of the demolished houses. The Court indicated that it would allow reconstruction, provided that the petitioners:
- File affidavits committing to appeal the demolition order within the legal timeframe.
- Do not create any third-party rights over the land.
- Accept that the houses will have to be demolished again at their own cost if their appeal fails.
The Attorney General of India, R Venkataramani, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, opposed the proposal. He argued that the affected structures were not the primary residences of the petitioners and that sufficient notice had been given before the demolition. Despite these claims, the Court remained firm in its stance against the unlawful bulldozer action.
Legal and Social Implications
Upholding Rule of Law
The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case is a significant assertion of the rule of law in India. The increasing trend of bulldozer demolitions, often linked to political motives, raises serious concerns about due process and citizens’ rights. The Court’s remarks send a strong message that arbitrary demolitions without proper legal procedures will not be tolerated.
Protection of Citizens’ Rights
By considering the reconstruction of demolished homes, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of protecting individuals from state overreach. If the Court ultimately orders rebuilding, it will set a crucial precedent for future cases involving demolitions.
Government Accountability
The ruling also highlights the need for government accountability. State authorities must ensure that demolition drives comply with legal frameworks and do not infringe upon citizens’ rights. This case has brought attention to how government agencies sometimes misuse urban planning laws to justify arbitrary actions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s sharp criticism of the Uttar Pradesh government over the Prayagraj demolitions underscores the importance of due process, natural justice, and constitutional rights. The possibility of reconstruction sets a powerful precedent for future legal battles against unlawful demolitions. As the case progresses, all eyes will be on the final verdict, which could have far-reaching consequences for urban governance, state accountability, and property rights in India.
Discover more from Lawfer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
