In a scathing indictment of illegal demolitions carried out by state authorities, the Supreme Court has directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay Rs. 10 lakhs in compensation to each of six individuals whose homes were unlawfully razed. The Court unequivocally denounced the demolitions as “inhumane and illegal,” asserting that they violated the fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On April 1, 2025, a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan found that the demolitions had been executed in blatant disregard of due process, with authorities failing to provide proper notice before destroying the residences. The ruling underscored the constitutional protections afforded under Article 21, reminding the state that “the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India… Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants.”
Violation of Due Process and Right to Shelter
The Court expressed its deep dismay at the brazen manner in which these demolitions were carried out. “These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished in the manner which we have discussed in detail,” the bench stated, as per LiveLaw. Justice Oka, during the hearing, further criticised the conduct of the authorities, observing, “This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process.”
One of the most damning aspects of the ruling was the Court’s rejection of the method by which demolition notices were allegedly served. As per the details of the case, the authorities had affixed notices to properties instead of properly delivering them in person or by registered post, effectively depriving the occupants of any real opportunity to challenge the demolition orders. “This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” Justice Oka remarked, condemning the practice as a flagrant violation of legal safeguards.
Procedural lapses and flawed execution of notice
The timeline of events further illustrated the authorities’ disregard for procedural fairness. As dictated by Justice Oka in his order, a show-cause notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was issued on December 18, 2020, and immediately affixed, with a perfunctory note claiming two prior unsuccessful attempts at personal service. A demolition order followed on January 8, 2021, which was again affixed but never sent via registered post. The first registered post communication was dispatched only on March 1, 2021, received on March 6, and the demolition was carried out the very next day—denying the appellants any meaningful chance to exercise their right to appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act.
The Supreme Court firmly rejected this approach, clarifying that the objective of the proviso to Section 27(1) was to ensure a genuine opportunity for affected individuals to respond before any demolition took place. “The object of the proviso to Section 27(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before demolition. This is no way of granting a reasonable opportunity,” the Court held, as per a report in LiveLaw.
Interpretation of legal provisions on service of notice
The order also addressed the legal requirements for serving notices under Section 43 of the U.P. Planning Act. The Court highlighted that affixation could only be resorted to if personal service had genuinely been attempted and failed. “When the provision talks about a person who cannot be found, 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 house and affixes it after finding that on that day the person concerned is not available. It is obvious that repeated efforts have to be made to make personal service. Only if those efforts fail then there are two options available. One is of affixing and second is of sending by registered post,” the Court observed.
The Court’s ruling also referenced its 2024 decision in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, which laid down clear guidelines for the service of notices and procedural safeguards to be followed before demolishing structures. While the present case predated that judgment, the Court applied Section 43 to underscore the authorities’ failure to comply with even existing statutory requirements.
Compensation and accountability
Initially, the Court had considered allowing the appellants to rebuild their homes, provided they undertook to demolish them at their own cost if their appeals were ultimately unsuccessful. However, during the latest hearing, their counsel submitted that they lacked the financial means to do so, prompting the Court to award compensation instead. The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, opposed this move, arguing that the affected individuals had alternate accommodations. The Court rejected this line of reasoning outright, stating that the availability of alternative housing did not justify the violation of due process.
Justice Oka was emphatic that financial compensation was necessary to ensure accountability. “We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation of ₹10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” he declared during the hearing.
Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not ruled on the appellants’ ownership rights over the land in question, leaving them free to initiate proceedings to establish their title. Additionally, it directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to “scrupulously follow” the guidelines set out in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures going forward, ensuring that such abuses do not recur.
A win for due process, justice and equality
The case had an additional political dimension, with the petitioners alleging that the State had wrongly linked their properties to the late gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was assassinated in 2023. They maintained that their homes were demolished without notice under this pretext. The Uttar Pradesh government countered that the structures were unauthorised and that the occupants had overstayed their leases. The Allahabad High Court had earlier ruled in favour of the State, dismissing the petitioners’ challenge on the grounds that their leases had expired in 1996 and that their freehold applications had been rejected in 2015 and 2019.
This Supreme Court order represents a crucial intervention against the increasing trend of illegal demolitions carried out under the guise of law enforcement. By awarding substantial compensation and issuing a strong condemnation of the Prayagraj Development Authority’s actions, the Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that due process cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative expediency. The said stance of the Supreme Court sends a clear message that state authorities cannot bulldoze homes without following the law—a warning that should serve as a precedent in future cases of unlawful demolitions and state-sponsored targeting.
Related:
Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance
Hegemony and Demolitions: The Tale of Communal Riots in India in 2024