Orissa High Court slams bulldozer action; orders ₹10 lakh compensation

The use of demolitions as a tool of enforcement without procedural compliance and judicial finality transforms a lawful act into a coercive one, the Orissa High Court said recently while censuring the State in a case of 'bulldozer justice'..In a ruling passed on June 20, Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi described 'bulldozer justice' as a procedure where executive power, backed by machinery rather than reason, supplants legal process. "The use of demolition as a tool of enforcement, absent procedural compliance and judicial finality, transforms what should be a lawful act into a coercive one. It is not the bulldozer per se that offends constitutional sensibilities, but the ease with which it is deployed before the law has spoken its final word. In a system governed by law, force must follow reason, not precede it. Where the reverse occurs, the legitimacy of State action begins to erode, and with it, the credibility of institutions tasked with upholding the rule of law," the Court observed..The Court was dealing with a case alleging that the authorities had demolished a community centre without following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.Having found that the Tahasildar had shown undue haste in demolishing the structure which served as a vital public utility space, the Court directed the State to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation with ₹2 lakh to be recovered from the salary of the erring officer in reasonable installments."The demolition was not preceded by the mandatory procedural safeguards, and was carried out despite subsisting judicial orders restraining such action. The petitioners were compelled to engage in multiple rounds of litigation, incurring legal expenses and enduring mental distress. This Court is of the view that the breach of judicial directions and procedural obligations, coupled with the manner and timing of the demolition, warrants public law compensation," the Court said.The Court also ordered departmental action against the Tahasildar and asked the State Chief Secretary to issue detailed guidelines to all the revenue officials and municipal authorities about the guidelines laid down by the apex court..In the present case, a 'goshtigruha' (community center) was constructed on a part of land designated as 'gochar' (grazing land), which is governed by the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act. The structure, existing since 1985, was repaired post-cyclone in 1999, and reconstructed in 2016-18 using public funds sanctioned under the “Ama Gaon AmaVikasYojana” and the MLA-LAD fund.As per the villagers, the authorities never raised objections regarding the construction. The villagers were even offered some homestead land in exchange for the gochar land utilized for the center..However, the construction became subject of encroachment proceedings in July 2024 under the OPLE Act. The petitioners contested these proceedings before the High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the plea directing the petitioners to instead file a settlement application under the OPLE Act In response, the petitioners followed the Court's directive. However, their application was dismissed by the authorities. They challenged this dismissal before the Appellate Authority-cum-Sub-Collector.On November 29, 2024, the High Court ordered the State to refrain from eviction during the pendency of the appeal. Despite this order, a new eviction notice was issued on December 5, 2024. This was again contested before the High Court, which reaffirmed the position on December 13, 2024, restraining eviction during the appeal process.On the same day, the Sub-Collector directed demolition of the structure in its order. A day later at 10:00 AM, the structure was demolished allegedly without giving the petitioners sufficient time to contest the order or vacate the property. Consequently, the present plea was filed along with a contempt plea for declaring the demolition illegal and ordering its reconstruction at State expense..The Court said the sequence of events raised not just concerns of administrative lapse, but of deeper institutional failure. "What makes the episode all the more concerning is not merely the breach of procedural safeguards, but the deeper disregard to constitutional process and institutional boundaries. The demolition did not occur in a moment of administrative necessity. It was not the outcome of a duly completed adjudicatory process. It was carried out while the matter was still under active judicial consideration, with the appellate authority having reserved its decision. No final order had been pronounced," it said.The Court added that the space between a matter being heard and a decision being delivered was not an empty procedural formality. It is a phase in which the law is still at work, the Court said."The authority of the appellate forum does not vanish simply because it is silent for a moment. That silence is deliberate. It reflects the court’s duty to think, not the executive’s opportunity to act," the Court further said.When the State proceeds to demolish a structure in that window knowing that the order has not yet been passed and that judicial scrutiny is underway, it raises a serious concern, the Court said.It stressed that forcible dispossession of a person from their property, without adherence to due process of law, constitutes not only a violation of their constitutional right under Article 300A but also an affront to basic human rights..The Court also said the State may justify the demolition of the Gosthigruha as a regulatory action but its implementation lacked legitimacy. The rapid and secretive nature of the operation, blatantly disregarding judicial restraint, suggests an impression of a covert operation rather than public administration, it added."Structures built with public funds, maintained for public welfare, and functioning without any recorded opposition for decades, were reduced to rubble in a span of minutes, without affording even the courtesy of lawful procedure. It is not the structure alone that has been demolished. It is the dignity of law-abiding citizens who sought protection not through confrontation but through courts. The executive is not merely expected to enforce orders, it is expected to wait when courts ask it to pause. That pause was wilfully ignored," it said..Commenting on the actions of the Tahasildar, the Court said his conduct in the case reflected a steady and conscious departure from the standards expected of a responsible public officer. In view of the same, the Court allowed the plea with directions for compensation and action against the officer..Advocates Ninad Laud and LK Moharana appeared for the petitioners.ASC J Sahoo appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]