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.
Comments
Post a Comment