Bulldozer action: Supreme Court moots reconstruction of houses of lawyer, professor demolished by UP

The Supreme Court on Monday said took strong exception to the manner in which the Uttar Pradesh government had demolished the houses of a lawyer, a professor and three others in Prayagraj without following the procedure under law..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said it was deeply disturbed by the manner in which residential homes were torn down just a day after a demolition notice was issued without giving the owners enough time to respond.The Court said it would consider ordering the authorities to rebuild the houses subject to the outcome of the case."Subject to outcome, we will direct reconstruction. It shocks our conscience how residential premises are demolished like this," the Bench remarked.It underlined that it would not tolerate such conduct and criticised the State for failing to follow even the basic principles of natural justice.“It shocks our conscience how residential premises are demolished like this...We are telling you we will not tolerate such actions. State should have minimum regard to the principles of natural justice," the Court said. .The Bench was hearing a plea by five individuals - advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows and one other individual whose homes were demolished. All the houses were on the same plot of land.After Allahabad High Court rejected their plea challenging the demolition, the petitioners submitted that notices were given to them on the night of March 6, 2021 and demolition took place on March 7, 2021, leaving them no time to challenge the action.They also claimed that the authorities wrongly linked their properties to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023. According to them, the Allahabad High Court dismissed their plea by relying on a 2020 letter without giving them a chance to contest it.The land in question is a Nazul plot leased back in 1906. The lease expired in 1996 and applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019. According to the State, the petitioners have no legal rights and were in illegal occupation of public land. The petitioners have maintained that they were lessees and were in the process of applying for conversion.They also said they weren’t given the opportunity to challenge the demolition under Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, which provides for appeal before an authority..During the hearing of the matter on Monday, the Court said it was prepared to allow reconstruction, provided the petitioners file affidavits stating they would appeal the demolition order within the legal time, not create any third-party rights over the land, and accept that the houses would have to be demolished again at their own cost if the appeal fails..Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the State, pushed back against the move, saying that notices had been issued well in advance—in December, January, and March. He argued that this was not a case of people being rendered homeless and that the houses in question were not primary residences..The Court, however, was not impressed. It pointed out that the notices were mostly served by affixing them on the properties and only the final notice was sent by post. This was unacceptable, the Bench said.“We’ve seen that instead of sending by post, it is served by affixing. Only the last notice was sent by registered post. Whenever it suits you, you will send by post… This is a design,” the Bench said. .Affixation should only be the last mode of service, the Court made it clear.It also warned authorities to be extra cautious while dealing with allegations of illegal construction and provide sufficient time to the occupants to respond before taking any action. "As planning authority, you should be more careful. If there are illegal constructions you must be very careful and follow due process of law.".They also said they weren’t given the opportunity to challenge the demolition under Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, which provides for appeal before an authority..During the previous hearing too, the Court had criticised the demolitions and said it expected the State to return with a fair solution. On Monday, the bench said that since no such step had been taken, it would now proceed to record its findings and issue directions.In the meanwhile, the Court granted time to all parties to file affidavits before passing any directions. .The State was represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani. The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari. The petitions were filed through advocate Rooh-e-hina Dua. .[Read Live Coverage].[Read Order]