The Supreme Court has ordered the Prayagraj Development Authority to compensate six individuals with Rs.10 lakh each for the illegal demolition of their houses, condemning the act as “inhumane and illegal.”
“The authorities and especially the development authority must remember 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.”
Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the demolition violated due process and the right to shelter under Article 21, calling it “shocking” and “high-handed.” The Court criticized the practice of affixing notices instead of delivering them properly, noting that the appellants lost their homes due to this.
Under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, proper notice must be served before demolition. However, the show-cause notice was affixed on December 18, 2020, without proper delivery. The demolition order was also affixed on January 8, 2021, and the demolition occurred the next day, depriving the appellants of the chance to appeal.
“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 order stated.
The Court acknowledged the 2024 ruling in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures on the service of notices but interpreted Section 43 of the UP Planning Act, as the demolition occurred in 2021. The section allows notices to be affixed if the recipient cannot be found, but only after genuine efforts to serve them in person have failed. The Court emphasized that repeated attempts must be made for personal service before resorting to affixing or sending the notice via registered post.
On March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court considered allowing the appellants to reconstruct their homes with an undertaking to demolish them at their own expense if their appeals were dismissed. However, the appellants' counsel stated they lacked the financial means and sought compensation instead. Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that the appellants had alternate accommodations, but the Court rejected this, emphasizing the need for due process. Justice Oka stated that compensation was necessary to hold authorities accountable, setting Rs. 10 lakh as compensation in each case. The Court also clarified that the appellants could pursue legal action to establish their title to the property.
The Court directed the Prayagraj Planning Authority to strictly follow the guidelines set in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures for serving notices and conducting demolitions. The petitioners had alleged that their properties were wrongly linked to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023, and that the demolition was carried out without proper notice. The Uttar Pradesh government argued that the structures were unauthorized and the occupants had overstayed their leases. Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the petitioners' challenge, accepting the State's claim that their leases had expired in 1996 and their freehold applications were rejected in 2015 and 2019.
info@adhwaitha.com
