The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the Prayagraj Development Authority for illegally demolishing six homes including that of a lawyer and a professor without following due process of law [Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors]..A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the authorities to pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh each to the six affected individuals.The judges expressed shock at the manner in which homes were razed within 24 hours of demolition notices being served. It ruled that the action violated Article 21 of the Constitution and amounted to an inhuman and unlawful abuse of power.“These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished...the development authority must remember that there is right to shelter under the Constitution of India and something known as rule of law in this country which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Residential structures of citizens cannot be decided in such way...This affixing business must stop,” the Court orally observed..Shocking: Supreme Court slams UP for demolition of house of lawyer, professor .The Court took particular exception to how the statutory notices were served. It noted that a show-cause notice under Section 27(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was issued on December 18, 2020 and affixed on the same day, with the remark that two service attempts had failed. The very next step was a demolition order dated January 8, 2021, which too was merely affixed.The first time any notice was actually sent by registered post was on March 1, 2021, which was served on the petitioners on March 6. The demolitions took place the very next day, leaving no time for the petitioners to avail of their right to appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act.The Court said this amounted to a violation of the proviso to Section 27(1), which mandates that no demolition order can be passed without first giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause.“It is obvious that genuine efforts are required to be made for effecting service in person. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the address and affixes it after finding that on that day the person concerned is not available. Repeated efforts have to be made for personal service...Within 24 hours of service, action of demolition was taken. This deprived the appellants of their opportunity to avail remedy of appeal under subsection 2 of Section 27. Therefore, The action of demolition is completely illegal which violates the right of appellants to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."Relying on its own recent ruling in In Re: Directions in the Matters of Demolition of Structures, the bench reiterated that affixation of notices must be a last resort and cannot be normalised..Earlier in the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted that the petitioners had alternative accommodation and were not entitled to compensation. The bench, however, did not accept that as justification for ignoring procedural safeguards.“How this was demolished…it shocks our conscience. There is a right of shelter, there is some kind of rule of law,” the Court said..The Court had earlier said that it was willing to permit reconstruction, subject to petitioners filing affidavits undertaking to file appeals against the demolition orders within the prescribed time. They were also asked not create any third-party rights over the land and agree to bear the cost of re-demolition if the appeal fails.The petitioners stated today that they did not wish to reconstruct the demolished houses, citing lack of resources. They sought damages instead. Justice Oka said awarding compensation was necessary to ensure authorities were held accountable.“We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation… that is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” the Court remarked..In addition to awarding ₹10 lakh to each petitioner to be paid within six weeks, the Court directed the development authority to strictly follow the demolition procedure guidelines laid down in the 2024 judgment going forward.It clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the petitioners’ rights over the land itself, and left it open to them to initiate appropriate proceedings to establish title or leasehold claims..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari.The petitions were filed through advocate Rooh-e-Hina Dua..[Read Judgement]
