Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Demolitions in Prayagraj; Allows Victims to Rebuild Homes

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has taken a strong stand against arbitrary demolitions by state authorities, allowing affected residents in Prayagraj to rebuild their homes that were razed in March 2021. The court’s decision came after it was revealed that Uttar Pradesh officials had linked the land to slain gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed and carried out demolitions without proper legal procedure.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed shock at the manner in which the homes were destroyed, pointing out that notices were served just 24 hours before the demolitions, leaving residents with no time to appeal the action.

“It shocks the conscience of the court the manner in which, within 24 hours of the notice, it was done,” the bench remarked, emphasizing the importance of fairness. “The state must act very fairly; the state must give reasonable time to enable them to file an appeal before the structures are demolished.”

A Chance to Rebuild Homes

The court ruled that the petitioners—advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows, and another individual—would be permitted to reconstruct their demolished homes at their own cost, with conditions.

“We will pass an order that they can reconstruct at their own cost, and if the appeal fails, then they will have to demolish at their own cost,” the bench clarified.

The petitioners are required to submit an undertaking confirming they will file appeals within the given timeframe, will not claim any ownership rights over the land if their case is unsuccessful, and will not involve third parties in property transactions. The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 1 to allow petitioners to submit their formal commitments.

Supreme Court’s Stand Against ‘Bulldozer Justice’

This ruling follows the Supreme Court’s November 2024 guidelines aimed at curbing illegal demolitions by state authorities, marking a significant move against what is commonly called “bulldozer justice.” This practice involves demolishing the homes of people accused of crimes—sometimes including their families—without legal due process.

The court has made it clear that demolitions cannot be carried out without prior notice. As per the guidelines, authorities must issue a show-cause notice at least 15 days before any demolition, allowing affected individuals time to respond. These notices must be sent via registered post and visibly posted on the structure in question. The notice must also clearly outline the alleged violations and provide a list of required documents for defense.

Additionally, every affected party has the right to a personal hearing before a final demolition order is issued. Once a demolition order is finalized, there must be an additional 15-day waiting period before execution to allow occupants to either challenge the decision in court or vacate the premises.

Petitioners Claim Unlawful Action by State

The petitioners turned to the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court dismissed their plea against the demolitions. They alleged that Uttar Pradesh authorities issued demolition notices late on a Saturday night and carried out demolitions the very next day, giving them no opportunity to challenge the decision.

Their legal team argued that the state wrongly assumed the land belonged to Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023 in a police encounter, leading to the unlawful demolitions.

State’s Justification Rejected by Court

Defending the demolitions, Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that the petitioners had been given due notice. He claimed that the state had issued the first notice as early as December 8, 2020, followed by additional notices in January and March 2021.

“There is adequate due process,” the AG insisted, adding that the demolished structures were part of “large-scale illegal occupations beyond the period of lease or rejection of applications for freehold.”

However, the Supreme Court was not convinced. The bench found serious procedural lapses, stating that most notices were improperly served. “The notices were served by affixture, which is not the method approved by law. Only the last notice was served by the legally recognized method, service through registered post,” the court observed.

The bench also dismissed the state’s argument that the petitioners were not homeless since they had alternative accommodation. “The 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 judges declared.

Petitioners Fight for Justice

The petitioners have argued that they were not illegal occupants but legitimate lessees who had applied for conversion of their leasehold property into freehold ownership. They claimed their demolition notice was issued on March 1, 2021, served on March 6, and executed on March 7, giving them no chance to appeal under Section 27(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act.

Among those affected are a lawyer and a professor, the latter of whom lost an entire personal library in the demolition.

Allahabad High Court’s Ruling and the Supreme Court’s Intervention

Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had upheld the demolitions, relying on a letter dated September 15, 2020, without allowing the petitioners to contest it. The court ruled that the land in question was a Nazul Plot in Prayagraj, originally leased in 1906, with the lease expiring in 1996. The high court noted that the petitioners’ applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019. The state government argued that the land was earmarked for public use and that the petitioners lacked legal rights over the property due to the absence of approval from the district collector.

However, the Supreme Court’s intervention has provided a fresh avenue for the petitioners to seek justice, marking a significant moment in the legal battle against arbitrary demolitions. The case will continue to be heard in the coming weeks as the petitioners file their appeals and submit their undertakings.