The Supreme Court on Tuesday described as “inhuman and illegal” the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to demolish the homes of six families in Allahabad with bulldozers, saying the action had “shocked” its “conscience”.
The court awarded a compensation of ₹10 lakh to each family, to be paid within six weeks, saying it was the only way of teaching a lesson to the authorities for their “highhandedness” and ensuring that they follow the due process of the law.
“This case shocks our conscience. There is something called right to shelter, due process of law and rule of law in this country. Residential premises have been demolished in a highhanded manner…. The authorities, especially the development authorities, must remember that the ‘right to shelter’ is also a fundamental right and integral to Article 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution,” a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed.
The court order is yet to be uploaded. Two of the petitioners were identified in court as Zulfiqar Ali Haidi, an advocate, and Ali Ahmed, a college professor. All six petitioners are residents of Lukerganj in Allahabad. The demolitions were carried out on
March 7, 2021.
In an interview with the news agency PTI that was published on Tuesday, Uttar Pradesh chief minister and BJP leader Yogi Adityanath said he was of the view that the “bulldozer justice” started by his government was a “necessity, not an achievement”. He claimed that the apex court had supported the use of bulldozers for such action.
The petitioners argued in court that they were the rightful owners of the houses and had been residing there for decades. They said the local authorities demolished the properties on the wrong presumption that they belonged to gangster turned politician Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf Ahmed who were killed in April 2023 allegedly by rival gang members while being taken by police for a medical check-up.
The top court referred to another instance of bulldozer action, in Ambedkarnagar district. “There is a recent video in which small huts are being demolished by bulldozers. There is a small girl running away from the demolished huts with a clutch of books in her hand. They are very disturbing and shocking,” Justice Bhuyan remarked.
At the last hearing on March 24, the bench had asked the Allahabad petitioners to give an undertaking that they would reconstruct the houses during the pendency of the dispute. However, the petitioners’ lawyers submitted on Tuesday that they did not have the financial resources for reconstruction and would rather prefer compensation for the loss suffered.
Attorney-general R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, opposed the plea on the ground that the houses had been demolished as they were illegal and that several such properties had been razed, not just those of the petitioners.
Justice Oka, heading the bench, noted that the authorities had issued the first showcause notice to the occupants under the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, on December 18, 2020, and thereafter on January 8, 2021. In both instances the notices were pasted on the premises in violation of the law instead of being served through a registered post.
Finally on March 6, 2021, the authorities issued a registered notice and demolished the houses on the verynext day.
“Genuine efforts are required to be made for effecting service of notices in person to the affected person. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the address and affixes it after finding that on that date the person concerned is not available,” the bench said.
It added: “In this case, action was taken within 24 hours of serving a registered notice, thereby denying the appellants the right to avail their remedy of appeal under sub-section 2 of Section 27 of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.”
“The action of demolition is completely illegal (and) violates the right of appellants to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of Section 27 of the Act was to provide reasonable opportunity to the aggrieved persons to file an appeal but in this case no such exercise appeared to have been conducted,” the court said.