The Allahabad High Court recently slammed the Uttar Pradesh authorities for evicting 6 shopkeepers and demolishing their shops for a government hospital project without determining their leases or proposing rehabilitation or compensation for them.

The Court described the conduct of the authorities, especially that of the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, as "highly condemnable".

A Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai said that although constructing a 300-bed super-specialty hospital was in the public interest, the shopkeepers could not be "thrown out" without alternative arrangements as they were earning their livelihood through their businesses,

The Court observed that the action of the authorities adversely affected the petitioners' livelihood and the same was violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench made these observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Mohd. Naeem and 5 other shopkeepers challenging an order of July 31, 2026, passed by Ayodhya DM.

Case in brief

According to the petitioners, the Sitapur Eye Hospital Society, Faizabad, had allotted them shops on a lease basis for 30 years in 2000. The allotments were made under the Sitapur Netra Chikitsalaya Complex Niyamawali.

The rules provided for registration upon payment of a fee of ₹500, security of ₹25,000 and a minimum reserved premium of ₹80,000. The shops were allotted through an auction process.

The petitioners were handed possession of the shops through possession letters dated February 28, 2000. The Court noted that rent was payable from March 1, 2000, and that the applicable rules treated the allotments as leasehold arrangements for 30 years, renewable after every 30 years.

"It is surprising that despite the petitioners having been allotted the shops and having acquired the status of lessees in accordance with the rules governing such allotments, they have been asked to vacate the premises without determination of their leases or any proposal to rehabilitate or compensate them for their eviction from the premises", the Bench observed.

The Court noted that Ayodhya DM issued a notice to them on June 26, 2025, stating that the land at Sitapur Eye Hospital, Faizabad, along with the shops allotted to the petitioners, had been transferred to the Department of Health and Family Welfare.

In the said notice, the shopkeepers were directed to vacate the premises within 15 days.

The petitioners had earlier filed a writ before the High Court, which was disposed of with a direction to decide their representation and to maintain the status quo until the DM decided the same.

The DM subsequently decided the representation vide his order dated July 31, 2026. The order acknowledged that the shops had been allotted under the applicable rules but stated that the land was required for a 300-bed super-specialty hospital.

The authorities took the position that the petitioners had no right to continue operating their shops.

The Bench accepted the public interest involved in constructing the hospital but added that the shopkeepers' livelihood and leasehold status could not be disregarded.

"We are conscious of the fact that the construction of a 300 bed super specialty hospital is in the public interest, but it is also equally important that the petitioners, who were carrying on the business earning their livelihood, cannot be thrown out without making any alternative arrangement for their rehabilitation or compensating them for the loss", the Court observed.

Describing the authorities' conduct as "highly condemnable", the Court said the action adversely affected the petitioners' livelihood and violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Therefore, the Bench directed the respondents to file a counter-affidavit within 3 weeks, indicating the steps proposed to rehabilitate the petitioners or compensate them in lieu of the shops from which they were evicted and which were also demolished.

The counter-affidavit must be filed by an officer not below the rank of Secretary, Medical and Health Department. The matter has been listed for November 16 as a fresh case.