On June 20, in a scathing rebuke of executive high-handedness, the Orissa High Court has ordered ₹10 lakh compensation for the illegal demolition of a decades-old community centre in Cuttack, terming the act a “deliberate” and “constitutionally impermissible” affront to judicial authority and due process. Of this amount, ₹2 lakh is to be directly recovered from the salary of the concerned Tahasildar, with departmental proceedings mandated against him.
Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi’s judgment in Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra v. State of Odisha marks a strong judicial stand against the rise of “bulldozer justice,” where state authorities act in haste, often with impunity, demolishing property without observing due process or waiting for judicial outcomes. The Court described the demolition not as an administrative misstep but as an act of executive aggression conducted “while the law was still at work.”
“This is not a procedural misstep. It reflects a troubling pattern, where the machinery of the State appears to act not in aid of the law, but in anticipation of avoiding its outcome. The space between a matter being heard and a decision being delivered is not an empty procedural formality. It is a phase in which the law is still at work. 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.” (Para 12)
Factual Matrix: A community centre razed in defiance of judicial orders
The case concerned a community structure (Gosthigruha) situated on 0.05 acres of grazing land (gochar) in Balipur, Athagarh, Cuttack district. Though classified as Rakhita Anabadi land under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act), the structure had existed in some form since 1985, repaired after the 1999 cyclone, and reconstructed between 2016 and 2018 using public funds from the “Ama Gaon Ama Vikas Yojana” and the MLA-LAD fund.
For over three decades, the structure was actively used for public welfare activities—yoga camps, health check-ups, awareness campaigns, and outreach programmes. The State itself had funded the structure, and no recorded objection had ever been raised by authorities prior to 2024.
In July 2024, eviction proceedings were initiated under the OPLE Act. Petitioners challenged these proceedings before the High Court, which disposed of the petitions on August 16, 2024, directing them to apply for settlement under Section 8A of the Act. When this application was rejected on flimsy grounds—including lack of registration and documentary gaps—the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector and simultaneously sought judicial protection.
On November 29, 2024, the Orissa High Court ordered that no eviction was to take place during the pendency of the appeal. A fresh eviction notice was nevertheless issued on December 5, 2024. The Court reiterated its protective order on December 13, 2024, restraining demolition until the appellate process concluded.
In open defiance of this, demolition was carried out the very next morning, on December 14, less than 18 hours after the Sub-Collector concluded the appeal hearing and reserved the order (at 4 PM), and just an hour after a demolition notice was suddenly affixed (at 5:15 PM).
Observations of the Court
“A deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was underway”: Justice Panigrahi’s ruling is remarkable for its constitutional clarity, moral tone, and emphasis on institutional accountability. The Court concluded that:
“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.” (Para 11)
The Court noted that the executive had ample knowledge of pending judicial directions. The demolition, it held, was executed not just in violation of legal mandates but with the intent to frustrate judicial scrutiny. This conduct, the Court declared, not only breached the rule of law but constituted a direct assault on the very architecture of constitutional governance.
Condemnation of “Bulldozer Justice”: The Court also expressed concern about what it termed an emerging pattern of “bulldozer justice”—the use of demolition as a tool of state power without regard to legality, process, or proportionality.
“The facts of this case echo a growing and troubling pattern commonly referred to as “bulldozer justice”, 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.” (Para 25)
The judgment emphasised that in a constitutional democracy, force must follow reason, not precede it. The failure to uphold judicial restraint not only violated the rule of law but “demolished the dignity of law-abiding citizens who sought protection not through confrontation but through courts.”
Violation of Supreme Court directives in “Demolition of Structures” case: The Court applied the binding procedural safeguards issued by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No.295/2022, decided on November 13, 2024. Those directives, issued under Article 142, mandate that:
- A 15-day show cause notice must precede any demolition.
- A reasoned order must explain why demolition is necessary.
- Appellate remedies must be meaningfully available.
- The act must be video-graphed and documented.
- All orders must be uploaded to a public portal.
In this case, none of these were followed. The Court held in its order that:
“The binding procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (Supra), are not aspirational guidelines, they are enforceable mandates. The Supreme Court, invoking its power under Article 142, did not request compliance. It imposed it. These directives must be treated not as peripheral suggestions but as minimum constitutional thresholds. The failure to issue a 15-day show cause notice, the absence of a reasoned order, the denial of appellate remedy, and the lack of video documentation are not merely checklist oversights. They are compound violations that nullify the very idea of lawful governance. A Tahasildar who chooses to discard these procedural obligations in favour of expediency does not act on behalf of the State, he acts against it.” (Para 21)
Article 300-A as a shield, not an ornament: The Court grounded its reasoning in the constitutional protection of property under Article 300-A, holding that:
“What is even more troubling is that the consequences of such executive haste are not merely institutional or procedural, they are deeply human. Law is not merely a tool to regulate action; it is also a shield against arbitrary force. When the State fails to pause where law requires stillness, it is not only the structure that is lost, but the trust of those whose rights depend on the process being fair and complete. This case, therefore, cannot be assessed solely through the lens of administrative law. It must also be understood as an instance where a constitutionally protected interest in property was extinguished not through judicial determination, but through executive fiat.” (Para 14)
It drew upon the Supreme Court’s rulings in:
- N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517
- Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596
Both judgments affirmed that property rights cannot be extinguished except by due process and statutory sanction.
Justice Panigrahi added:
“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)
Decision of the Court
Responsibility and public trust- Tahasildar held personally liable: The Court did not stop at abstract condemnation. It fixed personal accountability upon the Tahasildar who directed the demolition, observing that:
“The office of the Tahasildar is not a mere administrative post. It is a position that carries the weight of constitutional responsibility, particularly when it comes to enforcing the law at the ground level. To act in a manner that anticipates and potentially frustrates the outcome of pending legal proceedings is a serious breach of duty. This Court cannot overlook the fact that the demolition was carried out not in compliance with the law, but in disregard of it, and such conduct undermines both the authority of the judiciary and the legitimacy of public administration.” (Para 20)
In a rare move signalling judicial intolerance for contemptuous state action, the High Court ordered:
- ₹10,00,000 in compensation, with ₹2,00,000 to be recovered from the Tahasildar;
- Departmental proceedings to be initiated against him;
- A copy of the judgment to be placed before the Chief Secretary and Revenue Secretary;
- Immediate framing and dissemination of detailed guidelines to all revenue and municipal officers, incorporating the directives of the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022.
The Court further cited Delhi Airtech Services v. State of U.P. (2011) to underscore the doctrine of public accountability:
“Public officers are answerable for both their inaction and irresponsible actions… Greater the power to decide, higher is the responsibility to be just and fair.” (Para 24)
In a particularly important passage, it warned that arbitrary State action destroys the public’s faith in democratic institutions. This, the Court declared, was one such case—not just of wrongful demolition but of civic injury and institutional failure:
“What this judgment makes clear is that public power carries with it a continuing duty of care. The law is not self-executing. It depends on officers who are expected to act with fairness, honesty and within the limits of their legal authority. The doctrine of public trust is not a decorative ideal. It is a binding obligation that requires those in office to treat their role as a public responsibility. When decisions are taken in haste, or authority is used without proper justification, the consequences are not merely administrative. They touch the core of democratic governance. The rule of law is sustained not only by enforcement but by trust. That trust is built slowly and can be lost quickly. When it breaks, the harm is not always visible, but it runs deep. It affects not just the immediate parties but the public’s confidence in institutions. This Court has a duty to uphold both the legal framework and the public belief that the law is a shield, not a weapon.” (Para 24)
He stressed that the use of force before judicial finality undermines not just legal rights, but public trust in the constitutional order.
Conclusion: Law must prevail over expediency
Through this judgment that will likely reverberate through cases of arbitrary demolitions across India, the Orissa High Court reminded the executive that constitutional governance is not a choice—it is an obligation.
In allowing the writ petition and disposing of the contempt petition, the High Court has made a critical intervention in defence of constitutional order, judicial supremacy, and citizen dignity.
“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)
By grounding its decision not only in statutory and procedural norms but in the civic ethos of constitutionalism, the Court made clear that the real damage caused by “bulldozer justice” is not to buildings alone—but to public trust in the rule of law.
The complete judgment may be read below.
Related:
Encroachment or erasure? India’s demolition wave and the law
Bulldozer Justice: How Unlawful Demolitions are Targeting India’s Marginalised Communities
2022: A year when Bulldozer became a ‘lawful’ means of punishment