On November 6, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs. 25 lakhs in compensation for the illegal demolition of homes to make way for a road-widening project. The order came during the hearing of a suo-motu writ petition filed in 2020, stemming from a complaint by Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, whose house in Maharajganj district was demolished in 2019. The Supreme Court, while rapping the illegal demolition by the UP government, emphatically observed that, “You can’t just roll in with bulldozers and demolish homes overnight.”
The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the conduct of the authorities, condemning the Uttar Pradesh government’s actions as “high-handed”, according to Live Law.
During the hearing, the court found that no notice was served to the victim and due process was not followed.
Ref. article: Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition can be read here
Regarding the failure to serve notice to the victims, CJI Chandrachud further remarked, “This is completely high-handed. Where is the due process? The affidavit shows no notice was issued; instead, you merely informed people at the site through loudspeakers,” as reported by Live Law.
However, in response to the state’s claim that the petitioner had encroached on public land, CJI Chandrachud stressed that, “You say he encroached on 3.7 square meters. We accept that, though we’re not granting him a certificate for it. But how can you start demolishing people’s houses like that? This is lawlessness—walking into someone’s home and demolishing it without notice.”
Public announcement used, not formal notice or due process
Justice Pardiwala also strongly criticized the authorities for relying solely on a public announcement and a drumbeat to notify residents, rather than following proper legal procedures. He remarked that, “You can’t just with the beat of a drum tell people to vacate houses and demolish them. There has to be proper notice.”
NHRC report taken into consideration by court
The bench relied on a report from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which found that the highest encroachment in the case was just 3.70 square meters. The NHRC concluded that such a minimal encroachment did not justify demolishing the entire house. Based on its findings, the NHRC recommended granting interim compensation to the petitioner for the wrongful demolition. Additionally, the NHRC called for the registration of an FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint and for the initiation of departmental and punitive action against the responsible officers.
Additionally, the Court observed that the authorities failed to conduct any inquiry to properly demarcate the encroachments. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show that the land had been legally acquired prior to the demolitions.
SC directed UP Govt to pay 25 lakhs as a punitive compensation to the petitioner
The Court directed the State to pay an interim punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the petitioner, emphasizing that this amount would not hinder the petitioner from pursuing additional legal action for further compensation.
Additionally, the Court instructed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to conduct an investigation into all officers and contractors involved in the illegal demolitions, and to initiate appropriate disciplinary action. The Court also clarified that the State could pursue criminal action against those responsible. These directions must be implemented within one month.
Furthermore, the judgment outlined the procedural steps that state authorities must follow before carrying out any demolition for road-widening projects. According to Bar and Bench, the Court also ordered all States to adhere to the following while carrying out widening of roads:
While carrying road widening, States must ascertain:
– Existing width of road;
– If encroachment is found, notice has to be issued to remove the encroachment;
– If objection is raised, then a decision on objection should be rendered by way of a speaking order in compliance with natural justice principles;
If rejected, then reasonable time should be given to (the encroacher) to remove encroachment.
A copy of the ruling was ordered to be circulated to all States and Union Territories to ensure compliance.
Case Title: In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash [W.P.(C) No. 1294/2020]
Related: