Police, civil administration in UP seem to take pride in flouting judicial orders: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that officers in the State police and civil administration appear to take pride in flouting judicial orders and it seems to give them a sense of achievement rather than feeling of guilt [Smt. Chhama vs State of UP and 3 Others]..Justice JJ Munir made the remark while dealing with a plea alleging that officials demolished a house in Baghpat district despite a stay order of the High Court. “There seems to have come about a culture amongst the Executive Officers of the State, particularly, those in the Police and Civil administration to find a kind of pride in flouting judicial orders. It seems to give them a sense of achievement, rather than make them feel the guilt of being offenders. This matter cannot be taken lightly. It is well settled that any action done, whatever be its nature in violation of a judicial order, is a nullity,” the Court said..The single-judge added that a demolition is a physical act, which once accomplished only leaves two choices to the Court – award of damages or restitution. “The restitution would be by reconstruction of the demolished building. The building here was constructed in the Harijan abadi. It was not a construction in some kind of a public utility land, like a pond, a khalihan or a land submerged under water. Therefore, in our opinion, this might be a case, where restitution ought be ordered, requiring the State to reconstruct,” the Court explained..In the present case, an order of eviction was passed against the house owner Chhama (petitioner) in July 2024 and her appeal was dismissed in February 2025. She moved the High Court in March 2025.In the meantime, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed seeking removal of the encroachment. In the PIL, the High Court on May 5 ordered the Baghpat Collector to answer if any higher forum had passed any interim order in the matter and if not, why eviction had not been executed. The petitioner then mentioned her case against eviction for an urgent relief. The High Court stayed the eviction order, directing that construction of the petitioner shall not be demolished and no recovery shall be made. Both these cases, the petitioner’s plea and the PIL, were later ordered to be listed before the same Bench..Following the demolition, the petitioner moved a contempt of court plea against the officials for disobeying the stay order. Considering that it did not have a roster to deal with the contempt of court cases, the Court treated the plea “as one for wrongdoer”.It prima facie found that the demolition was carried out in violation of the stay order. The Court noted that photographs showed that authorities looked the other way when the stay order was shown to them.“An order of the Court once passed in the presence of the learned Standing Counsel representing the Authorities is deemed to be communicated as soon as it is made. The respondents are all authorities of the State represented by the learned Standing Counsel, and, therefore, their presence in Court is always there. They have notice of all the orders passed by this Court through the learned Standing Counsel,” the Court added..On the claim that the stay order was uploaded late on High Court website, the single-judge said the authorities should have verified once they were informed about the interim relief granted to the petitioner.“Even if there is a delay in uploading of the order and it has been passed in the presence of the learned Standing Counsel, and, the petitioner says that the High Court has passed a stay order, it is the duty of the Authorities to lay their hands back off something as drastic as demolition, until such time that the fact of a stay order being passed by this Court is verified. Upon hearing and an intimation of fact that this Court has passed a stay order, the Authorities should have immediately gone on the cautious mode and ascertained the said fact before proceeding further. Here, the photographs show that the order was already there, as the records show and well within the knowledge of the respondent-authorities and yet they went ahead with the demolition.”.The Court has now issued notice to Collector, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District Baghpat and the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Baghpat, requiring each of them to file their own affidavit on or before July 7, explaining why the demolished building be not reconstructed by them and restored to its original shape by the State. Advocate Vikrant Rana represented the petitioner..[Read Order]