Earlier, the Supreme Court criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing houses in Prayagraj without proper legal procedures.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing homes in Prayagraj without following proper legal procedures. The court said the way the houses were bulldozed within 24 hours of serving notices was unfair and shocking.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed deep concern over the issue.
“It shocks our conscience how the residential premises were demolished in a high-handed manner. The manner in which the whole process has been conducted is shocking. Courts cannot tolerate such process. If we tolerate in one case it will continue,” the bench stated.
The Supreme Court has decided that the demolished houses can be rebuilt at the cost of the petitioners. However, the petitioners must give an undertaking to file appeals before the appellate authority within the given time. The court made it clear that they cannot claim ownership rights over the land or create third-party interests.
The bench also stated that if the appeals are dismissed, “the petitioners must demolish the houses at their own cost.”
The court has adjourned the matter to allow the petitioners to file their undertakings.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, defended the state’s action. He assured the court that the government followed the proper legal process while issuing demolition notices.
“Due process” was followed in serving the notices, he said.
He also highlighted the problem of unauthorized constructions in the area.
“Large-scale illegal occupations” make it difficult for the government to control unauthorized possession, he pointed out.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing houses in Prayagraj without proper legal procedures.
The court said such actions send a “shocking and wrong signal.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Issues Notice Over Mumbai Gurudwara Demolition, Stays Status Quo
The petitioners, including advocate Zulfiqar Haider and professor Ali Ahmed, argued that their homes were wrongly demolished. They claimed that the government assumed the land belonged to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in a police encounter in 2023.
The Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed their plea challenging the demolition, which led them to approach the Supreme Court.
Timeline of Notices and Demolition
Attorney General Venkataramani stated that the first notice was issued on December 8, 2020, followed by additional notices in January and March 2021. However, the petitioners presented a different timeline. They said the demolition notice was issued on March 1, 2021, served on March 6, 2021, and the houses were demolished the very next day, March 7, 2021.
According to a report by Times of India, the petitioners were given notice on March 6, 2021, regarding constructions on a portion of Nazul Plot No. 19 in Lukerganj, under the jurisdiction of Khuldabad police station in Prayagraj district.
However, the Court was not convinced. It noted that the notices were mostly served by affixing them to properties rather than delivering them directly to the residents. Only the final notice was sent by registered post, which the Court found unacceptable.
“We’ve seen that instead of sending by post, it is served by affixing. Only the last notice was sent by registered post. Whenever it suits you, you will send by post… This is a design,”
the Bench remarked.
The Court made it clear that affixation should be the last resort and not the primary mode of serving notices.
The Court also advised the authorities to be extra cautious while handling allegations of illegal construction. It stressed the importance of giving residents sufficient time to respond before taking any action.
“As planning authority, you should be more careful. If there are illegal constructions you must be very careful and follow due process of law,” the Court stated.
The petitioners argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to challenge the demolition under Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, which allows an appeal before a designated authority.
In an earlier hearing, the Court had criticized the demolitions and expected the State to offer a fair resolution. On Monday, the Bench expressed disappointment that no corrective steps had been taken and announced that it would now proceed to record its findings and issue necessary directions.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Seeks Maharashtra’s Reply on Demolition Over Alleged Anti-India Slogan
In the meantime, the Court granted all parties time to submit affidavits before it passed any final orders.
The State was represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani, while the petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari. The petitions were filed through advocate Rooh-e-hina Dua.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
