Justice Beyond Bulldozers: The Unlawful Demolition and Its Aftermath in Uttar Pradesh.
06 November 2024
Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate
On October 4, 2019, Shri Manoj Tibrewal, a senior journalist, submitted a letter to the Supreme Court of India, complaining of the unlawful demolition of his ancestral residential house and shop located at House Number 117, Ward Number 16, Mohalla Hamid Nagar, District Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. This led to the registration of a suo motu Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (WP (Civil) No. 1294 of 2020), and the court’s intervention in a case involving encroachment and road construction.
The Road Widening Project and the Demolition:
The issue traces back to March 7, 2012, when the road passing in front of the petitioner’s house was notified as National Highway No. 730 under the National Highways Act, 1956. This was followed by a government-sanctioned road widening project in March 2018. The Detailed Project Report (DPR) for this project specified a 30-meter right of way (15 meters on either side of the road center), and construction agreements were made with Mahakaleshwar Infratech Pvt. Ltd. to complete the work by February 2020.
The petitioner’s family, however, claimed that their property was unlawfully demolished during this project. The demolition started in July 2019, after several public announcements and notices were allegedly issued. However, the demolitions exceeded the extent of the alleged encroachment by several meters. The petitioner argued that there was no proper notice or assessment prior to the demolition, with only loudspeaker announcements (Munadi) being made, which did not follow legal procedures.
Investigation and Findings by the NHRC:
Following the complaint, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) conducted an investigation, which found that although there was some encroachment (3.7 meters into the 16-meter-wide road), the demolition went far beyond this. The demolition extended up to 8 meters more than necessary, without any legal authority, as the road’s official width was only 16 meters and not the 32 meters claimed by the authorities. The NHRC concluded that the demolition violated the petitioner’s human rights and issued orders for interim compensation and action against the officials responsible.
The NHRC also noted that the state had not issued proper notices for the demolition nor carried out a demarcation process to assess encroachments. Moreover, no compensation was provided to the petitioner for the destruction of property. In response to the NHRC's findings, the Uttar Pradesh Government sought to justify its actions, stating that the matter was still under investigation.
Administrative Inquiry and the Role of Public Officials:
In addition to the NHRC’s investigation, the matter was also scrutinized by the Commissioner of Basti Division, who pointed out several procedural lapses. These included the failure to issue written notices before the demolition, the improper assessment of land requirements for road widening, and the lack of compensation for the affected property owners. The Commissioner’s report also criticized the then-District Magistrate, who had not properly verified the land records or followed legal procedures before authorizing the demolition.
The state administration’s handling of the matter was widely criticized, with clear evidence of high-handedness, neglect of due process, and failure to ensure accountability of the officials involved. The State Government’s actions, without proper documentation or legal justification, were deemed unlawful and arbitrary.
Court’s Findings and Directions:
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts, concluded that the demolition of the petitioner’s property was carried out unlawfully and without proper procedural safeguards. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process in the demolition of properties, especially when public projects like road widening are involved. It highlighted the dangers of arbitrary action by state authorities and stressed the necessity of maintaining the rule of law.
The Court directed that the petitioner be awarded interim compensation of Rs 25 lakhs for the unlawful demolition. It also ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to conduct an inquiry into the actions of the officials responsible for the illegal demolition, including both the district administration and the contractors involved in the project. Furthermore, disciplinary action was to be initiated against those found guilty, and the Chief Secretary was directed to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) for further investigation by the CBCID.
Procedural Safeguards for Future Demolition Actions:
The Court also laid down crucial guidelines for future demolitions related to public infrastructure projects like road widening. These guidelines include:
Verification of Road Width: Authorities must ascertain the existing width of the road through official records and maps.
Encroachment Survey: A proper survey and demarcation must be conducted to determine the extent of encroachment.
Written Notice: If encroachment is found, a written notice must be issued to the property owners, giving them sufficient time to respond.
Addressing Objections: If there are objections, they must be addressed in a speaking order, following the principles of natural justice.
Compensation and Acquisition: If land acquisition is necessary, it must be done in accordance with the law, and compensation must be provided to the affected parties.
Conclusion:
The case stands as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to legal and procedural norms when executing public infrastructure projects, especially when they involve the demolition of private property. The arbitrary and high-handed actions of the Uttar Pradesh government in this case not only violated the petitioner’s rights but also threatened the broader principles of due process and justice. The Court’s directions serve as an important benchmark for ensuring accountability and safeguarding citizens' rights against unlawful state action.