Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹20 Lakh Cost On State For Illegal Demolition, Ex-Parte Mutation Of Revenue Records
Passing an order during vacations, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20 lakhs on the State of U.P. for illegally demolishing structure on petitioner's property and passing an ex-parte order mutating the revenue records in respect of petitioner's property.
While imposing the cost, Justice Alok Mathur observed
“Mere setting aside of the impugned order will not be sufficient to render complete justice to the petitioner whose property has been illegally demolished by the State authorities. For the aforesaid action, adequate cost has to be imposed, taking into account the conduct of the state officials and the damage caused to the citizen whose property has been subjected to illegal demolition.”
One Santdeen had filed a suit for declaration under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act which was decreed in his favour. His name was mutated in the revenue records for the property in question. Thereafter, his son and brother became the owners of the land. Petitioner and her sister purchased this land from the son in 2021, their names were mutated in the revenue records by order dated 24.02.2021.
On 24.3.2025, respondent authorities demolished petitioner's structure on the land without any prior notice. At the time of the demolition drive, petitioner was informed of the order dated 10.2.2025 passed under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code.
Against this, the petitioner approached the High Court. It was pleaded that the proceedings under Section 38(5) for mutation in revenue records was done suo moto without any notice to the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors., to argue that there was a violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order or even before demolishing the structure on her land.
The Court summoned the original records pertaining to the proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code and personal affidavits of respondent authorities were called for. The Sub District Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli was also made a party to the proceedings.
Perusing the records and the affidavits, the Court observed that none of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment were followed by the authorities. It noted that the demolition was carried out behind petitioner's back without giving any opportunity of hearing to her.
The Court observed that the respondent authorities were aware of the order in favour of Santdeen, yet they did not deal with the said order in the impugned demolition order. This showed the malafide and arbitrariness in the proceedings, held the Court.
Perusing the affidavit of the Sub District Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli, the Court observed that he had neither tried to explain the exercise of jurisdiction nor denied that the action was without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it was held that there was serious infringement of petitioner's right to property and the order impugned was quashed.
Thereafter, the Court went on to impose cost of Rs. 20 lakhs on the State for damage to petitioner's property. Directing that the possession of the land be handed over to the petitioner, the Court also directed the State to launch an inquiry as to which officers were liable for this illegal act and to recover the cost from them.
Lastly, it observed that “it is not merely a case of violation of the rule of law, but even the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court have been disobeyed with impunity. We further observe that the conduct of the Tehsil / Sub Divisional Magistrate, indicates that the highest revenue officials of the District are clearly oblivious of the rights and duties which has been conferred on them by the law and also ignorant of direction of various courts. The State should take immediate steps to adequately train the revenue officials as they are dealing with serious property rights of the entire population living in rural Uttar Pradesh, who are entitled to speedy and quality dispensation of justice.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Savitri Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ C No.11232 of 2025]