In a significant ruling on the limits of executive power, the Allahabad High Court has held that authorities cannot rush to demolish the home of a person accused in a criminal case merely by invoking municipal laws. Stressing that a house cannot be treated as a form of punishment, the Division Bench ruled that such action, when closely following the registration of an FIR, may amount to a "retributive exercise of executive discretion" rather than a genuine enforcement of planning laws.
The judgment came while deciding a writ petition filed by Faimuddeen and two of his family members, who alleged that their residential house and business establishments were being targeted after a criminal case was registered against one of their relatives.
Background of the Case
The petitioners told the Court that their family had been living in the disputed residential property for years on the basis of registered sale deeds. They claimed that shortly after an FIR was lodged against their relative, authorities issued notices concerning their residence, sealed a sawmill and allegedly threatened demolition of their house and other properties.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that it was premature because only notices had been issued. It also maintained that no demolition of the residence or lodge had taken place and assured the Court that any future action would follow the procedure established by law. The State further justified the sealing of the sawmill by referring to alleged violations under forest laws.
Court's Observations
The Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan examined the constitutional protection available to citizens facing demolition proceedings. Referring extensively to the Supreme Court's decisions in the demolition of structures cases, the High Court observed that punishment for an offence can only be imposed by the judiciary and not by the executive.
The Court said:
“The executive has no right to declare a person guilty of an offence... it cannot demolish the property of an accused as a punishment without following the due process of law.”
The Bench further noted that when demolition proceedings begin immediately after registration of an FIR, the timing itself may indicate that the action is intended to punish the accused rather than to enforce municipal regulations.
According to the Court, the right to shelter forms part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It observed that loss of a home affects not only the accused but also family members, including women, children and elderly persons who may have no connection with the alleged offence. The judgment also referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings recognising the close relationship between life, livelihood and shelter.
New Safeguards Issued by the High Court
While adopting the safeguards already laid down by the Supreme Court in cases concerning demolition of structures, the Allahabad High Court introduced additional directions for authorities in Uttar Pradesh.
The Court held that where demolition is proposed against the dwelling of a person accused in a criminal case, authorities should ordinarily refrain from taking such action for two years from the date of registration of the FIR, unless the demolition is genuinely required for a public purpose and is carried out strictly in accordance with law.
It also directed that where a person has been residing in an allegedly illegal structure for three years or more, authorities should ordinarily provide one year's prior intimation before initiating demolition proceedings, unless compelling public urgency exists.
The Bench emphasised that authorities must consider whether violations are capable of being regularised or compounded before resorting to demolition.
Decision
Applying these principles to the present case, the High Court quashed the demolition proceedings relating to the petitioners' residence and lodge. It directed that no fresh demolition proceedings concerning those properties should be initiated for two years from the registration of the relevant FIR, except where removal is required for a genuine public purpose in accordance with the conditions laid down in the judgment.
However, the Court clarified that proceedings relating to the petitioners' sawmill under the Forest Act would continue independently and would remain unaffected by the present order.
The Court also directed that its judgment be communicated to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh for circulation to the concerned authorities and warned that any violation of its directions could invite contempt proceedings against the responsible officers. Finally, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Faimuddeen and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others
Case Number: Writ-C No. 2229 of 2026
Judges: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan
Decision Date: 20 July 2026
