New Delhi: Calling the approach “high-handed”, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 6) came down hard on the Uttar Pradesh government in a matter pertaining to 2019 demolitions for a road widening project and directed it to give a compensation of Rs 25 lakh to a person whose house was demolished without following due process of law.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted that the demolition was carried out without any notice or disclosure to the occupiers of the basis of the demarcation or the extent of demolition to be carried out.
How can you just enter someone’s home and demolish it without serving notice, apex court asked UP
“How can you just enter someone’s home and demolish it without serving notice,” the bench asked the Uttar Pradesh government and added, “You can’t come with bulldozer and demolish the house overnight.”
The bench, while noting that demolition was completely high-handed and without the authority of law, directed the chief secretary of the Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry into the matter.
Entire action by the state of Uttar Pradesh was of high handedness: Apex Court
“We hold that entire action by the state was of high handedness and thus we direct punitive compensation and direct the chief secretary of UP to conduct inquiry into the entire matter pertaining to illegal demolition against all officers including contractors who are responsible for illegal demolition. This will include disciplinary action against any officer who demolished not only house of petitioner but anybody else who met the same fate in the area,” the bench said in its order.
“We direct the Uttar Pradesh government to pay punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to the petitioner and the state of Uttar Pradesh to also take criminal action against anyone who has violated the law. Let the order be enforced within one month of this order. The registrar judicial shall circulate a copy of this judgment to all states to comply with procedure to be followed for the purposes of road widening,” the bench added.
Apex Court was hearing a suo motu cognisance it had taken on a letter complaining of demolition
The apex court was hearing a suo motu cognisance it had taken on a letter addressed by Manoj Tibrewal complaining of the demolition of his ancestral house and shop located in Maharajganj district. The bench was informed that 123 houses were demolished in a row.
The bench further directed that while carrying road widening, the state must take the following steps: 1. ascertain existing width of road, 2. carry out the survey to ascertain if there is any encroachment, 3. issue notice to remove encroachment, 4. If objection raised then a decision on objection by speaking order in compliance with natural justice principles, and 5. reasonable time to be given to remove encroachment if objections are rejected.
