The Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of a plea that challenged a demolition notice issued to a woman accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court was informed that the accused was given 15 days to appear and provide a defence to prove that her house did not violate Punjab Building By-laws.
It was alleged that the petitioner, against whom FIRs were already registered under the NDPS Act, was served a notice by the police and municipal corporation authorities. This came as part of the Punjab Government’s drive to demolish properties allegedly linked to drug peddlers.
The petitioner, Sonia, a resident of Ludhiana, approached the High Court after receiving a notice dated 24.03.2025 from the authorities for the demolition of her house. She stated that after replying to the notice through a letter dated 29.03.2025, she continued to face harassment from the police, who threatened demolition after the 15-day period mentioned in the notice.
"The petitioner gave reply to the concerned authorities vide letter dated 29.03.2025...Thereafter the petitioner has been again harassed by the police authorities saying that her house will be demolished at the expirations of 15 day notice."
During the hearing, the State Government submitted that the petition could be disposed of for the time being, as the authorities were examining the matter. The state assured the court that no adverse or coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner until a lawful decision is made.
“This Court is sanguine that the respondents-authorities shall look into the matter in the right earnest. And, appropriate orders, in accordance with law, shall be passed at the earliest,”
— Justice Arun Palli and Justice Sudeepti Sharma
The state counsel, Sartaj Singh Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab, assured the court that the competent authority was already addressing the petitioner’s concerns. He further stated that the petitioner’s written response would be duly considered and that she would be given an opportunity to be heard before any formal order is passed.
“The competent authority is in seizin of the concerns of the petitioner, not only the response submitted by her shall be taken into account, but she shall also be heard before any formal orders are passed.”
— State Counsel Sartaj Singh Gill
The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel, Sunpreet Singh, agreed to the disposal of the petition based on the assurance from the state.
It is important to highlight that in a previous landmark case, In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors., the Supreme Court had strongly criticised the practice of "bulldozer justice." It made it clear that the executive cannot demolish the properties of individuals merely because they are accused or convicted of a crime.
“The executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted of a crime.”
— Supreme Court, in In Re: Demolition of Structures
Furthermore, the court was also informed that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had already been filed earlier in March, challenging the Punjab Government’s reported demolition drive against alleged drug peddlers. That PIL seeks enforcement of Supreme Court guidelines related to such demolition actions, especially in NDPS-related cases. The court had issued notice in that PIL, which is still under consideration.
Mr. Sunpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
