Taking serious note of alleged punitive demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court has raised questions over the state’s conduct in targeting properties immediately after offences are reported, noting such actions persist despite the Supreme Court’s clear stance against “bulldozer justice.”
The matter stems from a petition filed by Faimuddeen and others, who claimed that following the registration of an FIR against their relative Aafan Khan—under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, POCSO Act, IT Act, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act—the authorities had begun targeting their properties for demolition.
The petitioners argued that despite not being named as co-accused, they were allegedly harassed by a mob in connivance with police personnel, and their properties, including a residential house, a commercial lodge registered as ‘Indian Lodge,’ and a saw mill, were either sealed or marked for destruction.
A Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddhartha Nandan, in an order dated January 21, noted that several demolition notices had been issued to property occupants immediately after the alleged commission of offences. The court said it was confronted with a broader issue involving the extent of the state’s authority to demolish properties and the constitutional rights of individuals under Articles 14 and 21.
The bench remarked:
“The case of the petitioners appears to be that though the petitioners are not co-accused in the FIR, the respondents issued a notice to Petitioner No. 2, who owns the residential house in which they dwell, immediately after the commission of the offence and registration of the FIR.”
It further recorded that the saw mill’s licence, though renewed as recently as February 11, 2025, was still pending final clearance, and the premises had been sealed along with the commercial lodge.
The court underlined the petitioners’ “obvious primary prayer” as seeking judicial intervention against the threatened demolition of their properties.
The Uttar Pradesh government submitted that the petition was “premature” and stated that the petitioners should respond to the notices issued to them. An oral assurance was given to the court that no demolition would occur without following the procedure established by law and without giving the petitioners a chance to be heard.
Despite this assurance, the bench expressed concern over the continued practice of post-offence demolitions in the state, pointing to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind v. Union of India, delivered in November 2024. In that decision, a bench led by then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud held:
“Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted, the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter.”
The apex court had emphasized that state action involving demolition of property must strictly follow due process.
Given the constitutional implications of the issues raised, particularly concerning the rights of property owners and alleged misuse of executive discretion, the Allahabad High Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 9.
