Today, On 6th November, The Supreme Court criticized Uttar Pradesh authorities over a 2019 house demolition, ordering the state to pay Rs 25 lakh in compensation to the homeowner. The court found the demolition unlawful and emphasized that authorities must respect citizens’ property rights. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s stance on upholding constitutional protections against arbitrary state actions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court criticized Uttar Pradesh authorities for their “high-handed” actions, ordering Rs 25 lakh in compensation to a man whose house was demolished in 2019 for a road-widening project.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also directed the UP chief secretary to investigate the unauthorized demolition in Maharajganj district.
Addressing the abrupt nature of the 2019 demolition, the bench noted sternly,
“You can’t come with a bulldozer and demolish the house overnight,”
The petitioner alleged that the demolition was a retaliatory act in response to a report he published in a local newspaper about the authorities’ misconduct.
The bench, however, did not comment on this claim. As a result, the Court ordered the State to pay the petitioner punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakhs. This compensation is interim and does not prevent the petitioner from pursuing further legal action for additional compensation.
Additionally, the Court instructed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to investigate all officers and contractors involved in the illegal demolitions and to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The Court also made it clear that the State may pursue criminal charges against those responsible for these unlawful actions. Compliance with these directives is required within one month.
The judgment outlined the procedures that State authorities must follow before carrying out demolitions for road widening projects, and a copy of the judgment was to be distributed to all States and Union Territories.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar represented the petitioner.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
