'Shocking That Houses Were Demolished Within 24 Hrs Of Notice' : Supreme Court Raps UP Govt; Says It Will Allow Reconstruction

In a notable development, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 24) stated that it would allow the reconstruction of the houses of a lawyer, a professor, and three others in Prayagraj, which were demolished by the Uttar Pradesh authorities without following due process of law.A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed shock at the manner in which the houses were demolished within 24 hours of serving notices, without giving the owners time to file an appeal.The Court stated that it would allow the reconstruction of the demolished properties at the petitioners' own cost subject to them giving an undertaking that they would file appeals within the specified time, would not claim any equities over the plot and would not create any third-party interests. If their appeals get dismissed, then the petitioners must demolish the houses at their own cost. To enable the petitioners to file the undertaking, the matter was adjourned.The petitioners—advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows, and another individual—approached the Court after the Allahabad High Court dismissed their plea against the demolition.They alleged that the authorities issued demolition notices late on a Saturday night and demolished their homes the next day, leaving them no chance to challenge the action. The petitioners' counsel argued that the state had wrongly linked their land to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023.Today, Attorney General for India R Venkatramani defended the demolitions, saying that on December 8, 2020, they were given the first notice, followed by notices given in January 2021 and March 2021. "Therefore we cannot say that there is no adequate due process. There is adequate due process," AG said. There are large-scale illegal occupations beyond the period of lease or rejection of applications of freehold, the AG added.However, the bench said that the State should act fairly by giving the occupant adequate time to file appeals."State must act very fairly state must give reasonable time to enable them to file appeal before the structures are demolished. Notice served on March 6 demolition carried out on March 7. Now we will allow them to reconstruct," Justice Oka said. AG then cautioned that such an order might be exploited by a larger number of illegal occupants."It shocks the conscience of the court the manner in which within 24 hours of the notice it was done," Justice Oka said. Justice Oka pointed out that the notices were served by affixture, which is not the method approved by the law. Only the last notice was served by the legally recognized method, service through registered post, the Judge pointed out."Therefore we are going to pass order only in the light of these facts. The manner in which the whole process has been conducted. Because Court cannot tolerate such process. If we tolerate in one case it will continue," Justice Oka said."We will pass an order that they can reconstruct at their own cost for and if the appeal fails then they will have to demolish at their own cost. State should not be supporting what has been done in this case, " Justice Oka clarified.When the AG said that the present case was not of homeless persons and that they had alternate accommodation, Justice Oka said, "state cannot say that already these people have one more house so we will not follow due process of law and will not allow them even reasonable time to file an appeal against demolition!"The petitioners have contended that they were not trespassers but lessees who had applied for conversion of their leasehold interest into freehold. A demolition notice was issued on March 1, 2021, served on March 6, 2021, and the demolition was carried out on March 7, 2021, without giving them a reasonable opportunity to challenge it before the appellate authority under Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act. The petitioners include a lawyer and a professor, whose entire library was demolished. They have contended that the Allahabad High Court dismissed their plea based on a letter dated September 15, 2020, without giving them an opportunity to contest it.The Allahabad High Court noted that the disputed demolition concerned a Nazul Plot in Prayagraj, which was leased in 1906. The lease had expired in 1996, and applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019. The State maintained that the land had been earmarked for public use, and the petitioners had no legal rights since their transactions lacked the District Collector's approval. The High Court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the structures were unauthorized.The Supreme Court has now taken a firm stance against the State's action, and kept the matter on March 21, 2025 for further hearing.Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari along with Advocate Rooh-e-hina Dua (AOR), Advocate Atif Suhrawardy, Advocate Syed Mehdi Imam (AOR) represented the petitioners.Case no. – Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v....

'Shocking That Houses Were Demolished Within 24 Hrs Of Notice' : Supreme Court Raps UP Govt; Says It Will Allow Reconstruction

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags