Skip to main content

Supreme Court Slams Illegal Demolitions: Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation for Victims

The Supreme Court of India has taken a strong stance against unlawful demolitions, directing the Prayagraj Development Authority to compensate six individuals with ₹10 lakh each for the illegal and "inhumane" demolition of their homes. The ruling underscores the importance of the right to shelter, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Violation of Due Process and Fundamental Rights

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan found that the Prayagraj Development Authority had demolished the residential premises of the appellants without following proper legal procedures. The Court observed:

“These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished... This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process.”

The Court ruled that merely affixing demolition notices was not a valid means of serving them. It emphasized that repeated, genuine efforts must be made to serve notices in person before resorting to affixture or registered post. The authorities, however, failed to do so, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to challenge the demolition.

How the Illegal Demolitions Took Place

The case revolved around a show-cause notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which governs demolitions of unauthorized structures. The sequence of events was as follows:

  • December 18, 2020: A demolition notice was issued and affixed the same day, claiming that two unsuccessful attempts were made to serve it in person.

  • January 8, 2021: A demolition order was affixed but not sent via registered post.

  • March 1, 2021: The first registered post was sent, which was received on March 6, 2021.

  • March 7, 2021: The demolition was carried out, leaving the appellants no time to appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act.

The Supreme Court held that such actions violated Section 43(2)(b) of the U.P. Planning Act, which mandates genuine attempts to serve notices before resorting to affixture. The Court clarified that authorities cannot merely visit a house once and affix a notice if the occupant is not present. Multiple attempts must be made, and a registered post must be sent before taking action.

Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment

The Court strongly condemned the Prayagraj Development Authority’s actions, declaring the demolitions illegal. The judgment emphasized:

  • The right to shelter is an integral part of Article 21 and cannot be violated arbitrarily.

  • The affixture of notices without proper attempts at personal service is not due process.

  • The Prayagraj Development Authority must pay ₹10 lakh in compensation to each affected individual.

  • The guidelines established in 2024 in the case of In Re Directions In the Matter of Demolition of Structures must be followed in all future demolitions.

Justice Oka made it clear that compensation was the only way to hold authorities accountable:

“We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation of ₹10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process.”

A Controversial Political Angle

The petitioners had earlier claimed that the Uttar Pradesh government wrongly linked their properties to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023. They argued that their homes were targeted under a politically motivated agenda. The Allahabad High Court, however, dismissed their challenge, accepting the State’s argument that their lease had expired in 1996 and their freehold applications were rejected in 2015 and 2019.

The Supreme Court’s ruling now overturns this injustice, reinforcing the importance of fair legal processes and the protection of fundamental rights.

Final Takeaway

This case sets a significant legal precedent in India, ensuring that authorities cannot evict people without following due process. The ruling reinforces that the right to shelter cannot be denied arbitrarily, and violations of this right will not go unpunished. The Prayagraj Development Authority's failure to adhere to legal norms has cost them dearly—and this judgment serves as a warning to all government bodies across India.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more