World
India
The Supreme Court has strongly condemned the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing the houses of a lawyer, a professor, and three others in Prayagraj without adhering to legal procedures. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed deep concern over the hasty demolitions, which took place just a day after issuing notices, leaving the affected individuals with no opportunity to respond.
Court’s Strong Rebuke
The court was particularly disturbed by the blatant disregard for the principles of natural justice and warned the authorities that such actions would not be tolerated.
“It shocks our conscience how residential premises are demolished like this… The State should have at least a minimum regard for the principles of natural justice,” the bench remarked.
Taking a firm stand, the Supreme Court stated that, depending on the final outcome of the case, it may direct the government to reconstruct the demolished houses.
Background of the Case
The petitioners—advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows, and another individual—challenged the demolitions, arguing that they were given notices on the night of March 6, 2021, and their homes were torn down the very next day, March 7, 2021. They claimed they were wrongly linked to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023, and that the Allahabad High Court rejected their plea without allowing them to contest the evidence against them.
The demolished houses stood on a Nazul plot, a government-leased land, which had been leased in 1906. While the lease expired in 1996, applications for converting the land to freehold ownership were rejected in 2015 and 2019. The State argued that the petitioners had no legal rights to the land and were occupying it illegally. However, the petitioners insisted they were in the process of securing ownership rights.
Failure to Follow Due Process
The petitioners also pointed out that they were not given the opportunity to appeal the demolition under Section 27(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, which allows for appeals before an authority.
The Supreme Court noted that while the government claimed to have issued multiple notices between December and March, only the final notice was sent by registered post. The others were merely affixed to the properties—an approach the court found unacceptable.
“Whenever it suits you, you will send notices by post, and when it does not, you simply affix them. This is a design,” the bench observed.
It further emphasized that affixing notices should be a last resort and not a primary means of communication.
Possibility of Reconstruction
During the hearing, the court indicated that it was open to allowing the petitioners to rebuild their homes, provided they submit affidavits agreeing to:
- Challenge the demolition orders through legal means within the prescribed time.
- Not create third-party rights over the land.
- Accept that if their appeal fails, the houses would have to be demolished again at their own cost.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, resisted the move, arguing that the affected houses were not primary residences and that notices had been issued well in advance. However, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced.
The court had previously advised the State to come up with a fair resolution, but since no concrete steps were taken, it decided to record its findings and issue directions. Meanwhile, all parties have been given time to submit affidavits before a final ruling is passed.
