Summary Demolition of Residential Building Is Violative of Article 21 -

Summary Demolition of Residential Building Is Violative of Article 21 Of Constitution of India - PDA Ordered to Pay Rs. 10 Lakhs Compensation To Each Of the Victims. 

The residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished in a summary manner without following the principles of natural justice and established procedures - such acts violates Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e citizen's right to shelter -  Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) directed to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to each of the appellant.

On March 1, 2021, a demolition notice was issued and served to the Appellants on March 6, 2021, with the actual demolition taking place the following day, March 7, 2021. This was done without granting them a fair chance to present their case before the appellate authority as stipulated in Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning Act. Among the Appellants, one is a Bar member, and another is a professor whose entire library was destroyed, resulting in their displacement. Furthermore, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Petition based on a letter dated September 15, 2020, which was submitted in Court without allowing the Appellants to contest its validity.

The Court observed that the demolition of the residential buildings was executed unlawfully and in an overbearing manner.

A Bench stated, "Thus, the demolition action is entirely illegal, infringing upon the appellants' right to shelter as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

"The action is utterly arbitrary. Additionally, the demolition of residential properties in such a forceful manner reflects a lack of sensitivity from the statutory development authority."

"This represents yet another instance of bulldozer justice. The officials of the PDA have overlooked the fact that the rule of law is paramount in our nation. Regrettably, the State Government has backed the PDA."

Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari represented the Appellants, while Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani represented the Respondents.

In a previous Order, the Court allowed for the reconstruction of the demolished homes, contingent upon the Appellants providing an assurance to demolish them if their appeals were unsuccessful. However, the Appellants informed the Court that they did not possess the financial resources to rebuild.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court referred to its earlier ruling, In Re: Directions concerning the demolition of structures, which established the legal framework for serving notice in demolition cases. It was determined that "No demolition should occur without a prior show cause notice that is returnable either in accordance with the timelines set by local municipal laws or within 15 days from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later."

The Court clarified, 

"The officers of the PDA must recognize that before any structure is demolished, every possible effort should be made to ensure proper service of the show-cause notice.

It is their responsibility to do so. Furthermore, after the proper and effective service of the demolition order, a minimum of 15 days must be allowed for the owner or occupier to seek relief through an Appeal under Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act."

"Residential structures belonging to citizens cannot be demolished in such a hasty manner without adhering to the principles of natural justice," the Bench stated.

The Court decreed, "Consequently, we set aside the contested order dated 8th March 2021, issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, and resolve these appeals by issuing the following directive:

We instruct the PDA to meticulously adhere to the guidelines established in this Court's decision regarding the demolition of structures… We mandate the PDA to pay costs amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) in each appeal to the appellants within six weeks from today.

Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Cause Title: Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 480

Appearance: Appellants: Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari; AOR Rooh-e-hina Dua and Syed Mehdi Imam; Advocates Atif Suhrawardy, Shamama Anis, Tabrez Ahmad and Pankaj Kumar

 Respondents: Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani; ASG Aishwarya Bhati and Ruchir Ranjan Rai; Senior Advocates Yatindra Singh and Shyan Divan; AOR Kamlendra Mishra and Parmanand Gaur; Advocates Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Vibhav Mishra, Shaurya R Rai and Megha Gaur Click 

10 Apr 2025