'We Can't Take Up Every Demolition Matter' : Supreme Court Asks UP Man To Approach High Court Against Demolition

The Supreme Court today granted 1 week interim protection to a 75-year old man from Uttar Pradesh facing demolition action allegedly without issuance of notice and opportunity of hearing.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, directing status quo for a week, after hearing Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim (for petitioners). The bench was not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and gave the petitioner liberty to approach the High Court to take benefit of the bulldozer judgment. However, noting that part demolition had already taken place, it directed status quo for a week.

Besides protection from the demolition action at his residential/marriage hall premises, the petitioner sought restoration of the portion demolished by the authorities, or compensation as an alternative. He also prayed for calling of the record of the demolition action and initiation of enquiry against officers for carrying out the action without due process.

During the hearing, the bench expressed that every demolition matter cannot be taken up by the Supreme Court under Article 32. Instead, any alleged violation of the bulldozer judgment can be pursued before jurisdictional High Courts.

Rahim, however, claimed that the matter would take atleast 10 days to be listed before the Allahabad High Court. Disagreeing, Justice Nath said that the High Court does take urgency into account and lists demolition matters sometimes on the same day.

After Rahim claimed that the authorities are standing with a bulldozer at the petitioner's property, and would carry out the action once he returns from the Court, the bench passed the status quo order.

The petition was filed through AoR Waseem Akhtar Khan.

It may be recalled that on November 13, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment reigning in 'bulldozer justice'. It 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.

Since this judgment, quite a few petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court alleging violation of the November 13 directions. While some litigants have been relegated to the jurisdictional High Courts, others have been entertained by the top Court itself.

Case Title: FARHAT JAHAN AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1207/2025