Court Mandates Due Process for Property Demolition in Road Widening Project.


26 May 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law  

In a significant ruling on May 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed a batch of writ petitions concerning the demolition of properties for road widening in Kotputli, Rajasthan. The judgment, delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in the case of Gyanchand Soni & Others v/s State of Rajasthan, emphasizes the imperative of following due process of law and respecting property rights while undertaking urban development projects.

The petitioners challenged the actions of the respondents (State of Rajasthan and Municipal Council, Kotputli) to demolish their properties for road widening, arguing that these actions were illegal, arbitrary, and violated Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, as well as principles of natural justice. Many petitioners claimed lawful occupancy through registered sale deeds, sale deeds from the respondents themselves, or pattas issued by the erstwhile Riyasat of Khetri. They contended that the demolition drive proceeded without proper notice, opportunity for hearing, or compensation.

 
 

Previously, a Single Bench and subsequently a Division Bench of the High Court had directed the respondents to decide the petitioners' objections by passing reasoned and speaking orders, and to maintain status quo on the properties. The Division Bench also quashed a public notice dated December 23, 2021, which broadly called for the removal of structures without distinguishing between lawful occupants and encroachers.

The respondents, represented by Mr. G.S. Gill-AAG, argued that the road widening was in the larger public interest, decided by an Empowered Committee, and that objections to the Master Plan were considered before its approval. They asserted that individual objections were examined, and representations were rejected through reasoned orders.

However, the Court found significant procedural irregularities. It highlighted instances where cancellation orders for commercial leases were issued without notice or hearing, and questioned the credibility of notice service, noting that the same two or three individuals were consistently listed as witnesses for alleged "refusal of notices" across multiple cases. This raised serious doubts about the fairness and credibility of the respondents' actions and indicated a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem (hear the other party).

The Court reiterated that while urban development and beautification efforts, as outlined in the Master Plan, should proceed, property owners must be given a fair hearing. It emphasized that the right to property is a human right, encompassing the right to shelter, and forceful dispossession without due process violates Article 301-A of the Constitution. The Court also referenced the Magna Carta, stressing that no one is above the law and that the protection of individual rights is fundamental.


Directions Issued by the Court:

To ensure a balance between public interest and individual rights, the Court issued the following directions:
Committee Constitution: The respondents must form a committee within fifteen days to address the petitioners' grievances.
Opportunity of Hearing: The committee must provide an opportunity of hearing to all petitioners and decide their representations and objections with reasoned orders in each individual case.
Compensation/Allotment: If a petitioner holds valid title to a property required for road expansion, adequate compensation must be awarded at prevailing DLC rates, or alternative land allotted under an applicable government scheme.
Unobjected Cases: In cases where no objections are received, respondents are free to proceed in accordance with the law.
Aggrieved Parties' Recourse: Any person aggrieved by the committee's decision can approach the appropriate legal forum.
Tree Plantation: If trees or plants are removed, the respondents must count and document them, and plant ten shady plants for every removed tree in nearby public areas, submitting a report to the Court.
Construction Commencement: After representations and objections are decided and at least fifteen days have passed since the issuance of orders, the respondents can proceed with road construction as per the Master Plan 2011-2031.

The Court mandated compliance with its order within three months, aiming to bring the stalled development and expansion work to a logical conclusion while upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights.