2025 (4) TMI 1527 - SC - Indian Laws

Demolition without proper notice violates Section 27(2) rights, authorities ordered to pay Rs 10 lakhs compensation

The SC held that demolition of residential structures by Prayagraj Development Authority was illegal and arbitrary. The demolition order dated 8th January ... Demolition of the appellants' residential structures by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - HELD THAT:- As noted by this Court in the order issuing notice, against an order of demolition made under sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the 1973 Act, an appeal has been provided under sub-section (2) of Section 27. The demolition order passed on 8th January, 2021, was not served upon the appellants. It was allegedly served by affixing only. What was served was a subsequent communication dated 1st March, 2021. Within 24 hours of the service of the said communication, an action of demolition was taken on a Sunday. This deprived the appellants of their opportunity to avail of the remedy of appeal under sub-Section (2) of Section 27 of the 1973 Act. Therefore, the demolition action is completely illegal, which violates the appellants' right to shelter guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The action is completely arbitrary. Moreover, carrying out demolition of residential structures in such a highhanded manner shows insensitivity on the part of the statutory development authority. This is one more case of bulldozer justice. The officers of the PDA have forgotten that the rule of law prevails in our country. Unfortunately, the State Government has supported the PDA. Today, the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on instructions, stated that the appellants are not in a position to reconstruct the structures. In view of this statement, there is now there is no occasion to direct the planning authority to follow the due process of law in these cases. However, considering the inhuman and illegal action of demolition carried out, the planning authority must be saddled with costs. The costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- quantified in each case. Conclusion - The demolition carried out by PDA was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional rights. Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the demolition of the appellants' residential structures by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (the '1973 Act') was lawful and in accordance with due process of law.- Whether the notice of demolition and show-cause notice were properly served on the appellants as mandated by the 1973 Act and principles of natural justice.- Whether the appellants were afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the demolition order was executed.- Whether the demolition violated the appellants' fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.- Whether the PDA complied with the procedural safeguards and directions laid down by this Court in the recent judgment on demolition procedures (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291).- The appropriateness of imposing costs on the PDA for the illegal and highhanded demolition.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Legality of Demolition under Section 27 of the 1973 ActThe 1973 Act empowers the Vice-Chairman or an authorized officer of the PDA to order demolition of unauthorized developments contravening the Master Plan or lacking requisite permissions. Section 27(1) mandates that before demolition, a show-cause notice must be issued, and a reasonable opportunity given to the owner or person concerned to show cause why demolition should not be ordered. Sub-section (2) provides for an appeal against the demolition order to the Chairman within thirty days, with a stay of execution possible under sub-section (3). The decision of the Chairman is final and not subject to judicial review, per sub-section (4).The Court examined the factual matrix, noting that the PDA issued a show-cause notice dated 18th December 2020, which was affixed on the structure but not personally served. The demolition order dated 8th January 2021 was similarly affixed without registered post service. The appellants received a communication of the demolition order by registered post only on 6th March 2021, and demolition was executed on 7th March 2021, within 24 hours of receipt.The Court emphasized that the demolition was carried out purportedly under Section 27 but without adherence to the procedural safeguards of personal service and reasonable opportunity to appeal. The demolition was thus found to be illegal and arbitrary.Issue 2: Service of Notice and Compliance with Procedural RequirementsThe Court analyzed the service of notice requirements under Section 27 of the 1973 Act and Section 43 governing service of notices. Clause (d) of Section 43(1) states that if the person cannot be found after genuine multiple attempts, notice may be affixed conspicuously or sent by registered post. The Court held that 'if such person cannot be found' means after multiple genuine efforts on more than one day, not merely because the person was unavailable at a particular time on a single day.The Court referred to the recent authoritative judgment in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291, which prescribes strict procedural safeguards for demolition notices, including:Service by registered post with acknowledgmentAffixing notice conspicuously on the structureMinimum 15 days' time from receipt of notice before demolitionDigital intimation to Collector/District MagistrateDetails in the notice specifying nature of violation, grounds of demolition, documents required, and hearing dateEstablishment of a digital portal for transparencyApplying these principles, the Court found that the PDA failed to make multiple genuine attempts at personal service, did not send the show-cause notice by registered post initially, and affixed notices without proper service. The demolition order was not served properly before demolition. The PDA also failed to provide the mandatory 15 days' time for appeal after proper service.Issue 3: Violation of Fundamental Rights and Natural JusticeThe Court underscored that the right to shelter is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Demolition of residential premises without due process violates this fundamental right. The Court condemned the 'highhanded' and 'summary' demolition, describing it as 'bulldozer justice' lacking sensitivity and contrary to the rule of law, which is part of the Constitution's basic structure.The Court held that the PDA's failure to follow principles of natural justice-specifically, the failure to serve notices properly and afford a reasonable opportunity to be heard-rendered the demolition illegal and arbitrary.Issue 4: Remedies and DirectionsThe appellants stated they were unable to reconstruct the demolished structures, thus the Court declined to direct reconstruction subject to undertaking. Instead, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the PDA for each case, reflecting the gravity of the illegal action and the insensitivity shown.The Court set aside the impugned High Court order dismissing the appeals and directed the PDA to strictly comply with the procedural safeguards laid down in the 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291 judgment in future demolition actions.The PDA was also directed to pay the costs within six weeks, failing which interest at 6% per annum would accrue from the date of filing of the Special Leave Petitions.The Court further directed the PDA to provide copies of all relevant orders to the appellants and left open the appellants' right to initiate appropriate proceedings to establish their land rights and claim compensation for illegal demolition.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The demolition action is completely illegal, which violates the appellants' right to shelter guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The action is completely arbitrary.''Only after genuine multiple efforts are made to find the person on more than one day, one can say that 'the person cannot be found'. 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 day, the person concerned is unavailable at a given time.''Considering the drastic consequences provided in Section 27, recourse should usually be taken to both modes [affixing notice and sending by registered post]. The officers of the PDA must understand that before a structure is demolished, every possible effort should be made to effect a proper service of the show-cause notice. It is their duty to do so.''The residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished in such a summary manner without following the principles of natural justice.''The right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right can be taken away only by following due process of law.''The officers of the PDA have forgotten that the rule of law prevails in our country.'Core principles established:Demolition under Section 27 of the 1973 Act must strictly comply with procedural safeguards, including proper service of show-cause and demolition orders.Multiple genuine attempts at personal service are mandatory before resorting to affixing notice or sending by registered post.Reasonable opportunity to be heard and minimum 15 days' time to appeal must be provided before demolition.Demolition of residential structures without adherence to due process violates fundamental rights under Article 21.Authorities must follow this Court's directions on demolition notices, including digital intimation and transparency measures.Illegal demolition attracts heavy costs to deter highhanded actions and uphold rule of law.Final determinations:The demolition carried out by PDA was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional rights.The High Court order dismissing the appeals was set aside.The PDA was directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- costs per case with interest for delay.The PDA must comply with this Court's procedural directions in future demolitions.The appellants retain the right to pursue further legal remedies for land rights and compensation.