In a strong rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh government, the Supreme Court has condemned the unauthorized demolition of private homes for a road-widening project, describing the act as “high-handed.” In a decisive judgment, the Court has ordered the UP government to provide interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the petitioner, whose home was razed without due legal process.
The court also directed a disciplinary inquiry into the actions of the officers involved, stressing the need for accountability. “How can you just enter someone’s home and demolish it without following due process or serving notice?” Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud questioned the state government.
The UP government had requested an adjournment, but CJI Chandrachud rejected the plea, stating that the court must evaluate the materials already submitted to assess the legality of the demolition.
The Court noted serious procedural lapses in the state’s actions. The UP government failed to provide documentation showing the original width of the state highway, details of any inquiry into alleged encroachments, or evidence that the required land was legally acquired before the demolition. Additionally, no information was presented regarding the extent of the petitioner’s property that supposedly fell within the highway’s central line. The Court observed that the demolition exceeded the boundaries of the alleged encroachment, as confirmed by an NHRC report.
CJI Chandrachud emphasized that demolitions had been conducted without prior notice, leaving occupants uninformed about the basis or extent of the destruction. “This demolition was carried out without the authority of law,” he stated, adding that the petitioner believed it was retaliatory action for raising concerns about irregularities in a newspaper report on road construction.
In its order, the Supreme Court clarified that the UP government must adhere to specific procedural steps before carrying out demolitions for road widening:
1. Determine the existing width of the road.
2. Issue a notice for removal if encroachments are identified.
3. Address any objections raised in a reasoned order, respecting principles of natural justice.
4. Allow adequate time for the removal of encroachments if the objections are rejected.
The Court declared the actions of the UP authorities to be marked by “high-handedness” and directed punitive compensation. Additionally, the Chief Secretary of UP has been ordered to conduct a thorough inquiry into the illegal demolitions, covering not only the petitioner’s home but also others similarly affected. The Court mandated disciplinary action against any officer found responsible, including contractors involved in the illegal demolitions.
The Court has further instructed the UP government to ensure criminal proceedings against those who violated the law, requiring the judgment to be enforced within a month. In a broader directive, the Court ordered that a copy of this judgment be circulated to all states, underscoring the necessity of following proper legal procedures in future road-widening projects.
