In a scathing indictment of arbitrary state action, the Supreme Court of India recently granted leave and delivered a decisive judgment in a case concerning the demolition of residential premises by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA). The apex court expressed deep shock and termed the PDA's actions as "highhanded and illegal," highlighting a grave violation of the appellants' fundamental right to shelter.

The demolition, purportedly carried out under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, came under intense scrutiny. Section 27 empowers the PDA to order the removal of unauthorized developments after providing the owner with a reasonable opportunity to show cause.

Flawed Service of Notice and Hasty Demolition:

The court in the matter of Zulfiquar Haider & Another v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Others., meticulously examined the sequence of events based on the counter affidavit filed by the PDA. A show-cause notice was allegedly issued and affixed to the appellants' property on December 18, 2020, with a remark indicating a failed attempt at personal service on the same day. Subsequently, a demolition order was passed on January 8, 2021, which was also purportedly served by affixation. A later communication of the demolition order, dated March 1, 2021, was sent by registered post and served on the appellants on March 6 and 7, 2021. Shockingly, the demolition of the appellants' residential structures was carried out using bulldozers within 24 hours of this service, on a Sunday.

The Supreme Court drew attention to its recent judgment in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, which laid down comprehensive guidelines for demolition procedures, including the mandatory service of a prior show-cause notice via registered post with acknowledgment due, and conspicuous affixation on the property, allowing at least 15 days for a reply.

While acknowledging that the aforementioned guidelines were subsequent to the events in this case, the court analyzed Section 43 of the 1973 Act concerning the service of notices. Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) dictates that if the person cannot be found, the notice can be affixed or sent by registered post. The court emphatically clarified that "if such person cannot be found" implies genuine and multiple efforts to effect personal service over more than one day. Affixing the notice on the first instance of unavailability is not sufficient. Furthermore, considering the severe consequences of demolition under Section 27, the court stressed that both modes of service (affixation and registered post) should ideally be employed. Crucially, after proper service of the demolition order, at least 15 days must be given for the owner to file an appeal under Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act.

In this instance, the court found that no genuine efforts were made for personal service of the show-cause notice. While registered post was an available option, it was not initially used. The demolition order itself was only allegedly served by affixation. The subsequent communication, served barely 24 hours before the demolition on a Sunday, effectively deprived the appellants of their statutory right to appeal.

Violation of Right to Shelter and Rule of Law:

The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that the demolition action was "completely illegal" and a blatant violation of the appellants' right to shelter, an integral aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court firmly asserted that this right can only be taken away by following due process of law. Emphasizing that India is governed by the rule of law, a fundamental part of the Constitution's basic structure, the court condemned the "summary manner" in which the residential structures were demolished, without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The court lamented the PDA's failure to make genuine efforts for personal service of the show-cause notice and the hasty demolition that extinguished the appellants' right to appeal.

The court did not mince its words, describing the demolition as a display of "insensitivity" by the statutory development authority and labeling it as "one more case of bulldozer justice." The court sternly reminded the PDA's officers that the "rule of law prevails" in the country and expressed disappointment that the State Government had supported the PDA's actions.

Order for Compensation and Strict Compliance:

Acknowledging the appellants' inability to reconstruct the demolished structures, the Supreme Court, instead of directing reconstruction subject to the outcome of a potential appeal, imposed a cost of ?10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs) in each case on the PDA. This cost is to be paid to the appellants within six weeks, failing which it will attract an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing the Special Leave Petitions until payment.

Furthermore, the court directed the PDA to provide a copy of the demolition order (referred to in the counter affidavit) to the appellants, even if it was assumed to have been served earlier. Finally, the court explicitly left it open for the appellants to initiate appropriate legal proceedings to establish their rights concerning the land and to claim compensation for the illegal demolition.

In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court mandated the PDA to "scrupulously follow" the guidelines laid down in its recent decision regarding the demolition of structures, ensuring that due process and the principles of natural justice are strictly adhered to in all future actions. This judgment serves as a strong message against arbitrary and highhanded actions by state authorities, reaffirming the sanctity of the rule of law and the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly the right to shelter.