Supreme Court Directs Sealing Of 44 Unauthorised Properties In Meerut, Pulls Up Officer For Defying Demolition Orders

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 7) directed the immediate sealing of 44 properties in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, after discovering that residential plots had been illegally converted into commercial establishments, schools, and hospitals, many operating without sanctioned plans or basic fire safety measures.

While hearing a contempt petition in a matter relating to the unauthorized conversion of residential premises into commercial establishments without approved layouts, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan took serious exception to the conduct of the former Meerut Divisional Commissioner, Rishikesh Bhaskar Yashod, who was personally present in Court.

The bench questioned under what authority he chose to disregard earlier judicial directions against unauthorised construction by issuing an order stating that certain commercial establishments in Meerut's Central Market area would not be demolished “at present.”

On October 27, 2025, the Meerut Commissioner had passed an order that no further demolition of shops should be carried out in the Central Market area as the shops would be granted "market street" status through a proposed amendment to the Master Plan.

The Chairperson of Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Mr P. Guruprasad, told the Court that demolitions could not be carried out in view of the order passed by the Meerut Commissioner on October 27.

On April 2, the Court had expressed that it was "very much disturbed by what the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut did by passing the order dated 27.10.2025.". Therefore, the then Commissioner was directed to appear before the Court on April 6.

You will succumb to public pressure? SC asks the officer

On April 6, the bench led by Justice Pardiwala pulled up Yashod, who was the then Commissioner, for passing such an order, and allowing illegal conversions.

Yashod explained that he passed the order halting demolitions as there was "public hue and cry." Justice Pardiwala then asked him, "So will you succumb to hue and cry by enroachers or will you go by the rule of law. You are a public servant, you are expected to maintain the rule of law. The entire democracy stands on rule of law. Why did you succumb to the pressure?".

Justice Pardiwala further asked the officer at whose instance the order was passed. The officer replied that he had held consultations with the public representatives.

Justice Pardiwala pointed out that the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad has taken the stance that it could not proceed with the demolition drive due to the order passed by the Meerut Commissioner.

"Why did you have to say that they will not be demolished at present? There was an order passed by this Court, you were duty bound to abide by the order. Why did you pass this order that Central Market will not be demolished? Who authorised you to pass such an order? You defied our orders " Justice Pardiwala asked.

Absolute defiance of orders of the Court

In the order, the Court recorded its extreme unhappiness with the conduct of the Meerut Commissioner, and termed it "absolute defiance of the orders passed by this Court."

“This is something highly deplorable and we do not approve of the same. This stance or rather the action on the part of the Former Commissioner is nothing but absolute defiance of the Order passed by this court.”, the court remarked.

“Rule of Law has been given a go by. What we have been given to understand is that all these plots were originally allotted for residential purpose. On some of the plots, residential houses were constructed and over a period of time, additional construction was put up in each of these properties for the purpose of utilizing it for commercial purpose. It is not in dispute that no plans for the additional constructions were sanctioned, no permission was obtained and at the same time, nobody paid heed to all these unauthorized constructions.”, the bench added.

Schools & Hospitals functioning out of illegal structures : Court expresses alarm

The Court was particularly alarmed by the presence of Schools and Hospitals operating out of these 44 illegal structures. It questioned how these entities obtained electricity connections and business permissions without legal building status.

The Court noted that most schools are for nursery children.

“What is more shocking and startling is that in this particular area, there are 5 to 6 Schools and Hospitals. These Schools and Hospitals are being run in buildings/constructions which are absolutely illegal and unauthorized. We wonder how they were able to procure electricity connection for the same. We are going to inquire in the course of further hearing, who is responsible for providing electricity to these buildings, which are absolutely unauthorized. We would also like to know the basis for providing such electricity connections. We wonder whether these schools run in illegal structures, have any fire fighting appliances, whether the hospitals have any fire fighting facilities and are fire safety compliant. Unfortunately, all these schools are for tiny tots, could be small children going in nursery etc. The patients are also exposed to extreme vulnerability. Today we are much more concerned in protecting the lives of the innocent children going to schools and the patients who are taking medical treatment in the hospitals.”, the court observed.

Also, the court questioned how banks had entered into lease agreements to operate on these illegal properties.

“We wonder how banks entered into lease agreements with the lessors. We wonder whether the banks inquired whether the buildings are legal and whether any completion certificate etc. has been issued by the authorities.," the order stated.

State officers to be personally responsible for any untoward incident

The Court faulted the State authorities for allowing the operation of school, hospitals, banks, and other commercial establishment, and said if any untoward incident happens in near future, the “State authorities will be held personally responsible for the same and they will be accountable for such untoward incidents.”

“…the State authorities shall pay attention immediately to the vulnerable pockets of this area like Schools and Hospitals which are being run in buildings which are absolutely illegal and unauthorized. Over a period of time, the State could be said to have taken a huge risk in exposing this section of the society to some very serious casualties or imminent danger.”, the court said.

Also, the Court directed the state authorities that it would be there responsibility to shift the patient to different hospitals or the students to different school.

“Whether the patients are to be relocated at any other hospital, it will be the responsibility of the State. In the same manner, if the students are to be readmitted in any other school, that shall be the responsibility of the State.”, the court directed.

The matter is next listed on 9-4-2026 at the top of the board.

The Court directed Yashod to file an appropriate affidavit explaining what transpired on 27th October 2025 and his specific stance in the matter.

Cause Title: LOKESH KUMAR KHURANA VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 877/2025 in C.A. No. 14604/2024, BIMALENDU PRADHAN v. STATE OF ODISHA and connected cases.

Click here to download order