The Supreme Court of India on March 24 strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing the houses of a lawyer, a professor, and three others in Prayagraj within 24 hours of issuing notices. The apex court expressed shock over the hasty demolition, which it deemed a violation of due process.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that the state must act fairly by giving affected residents adequate time to appeal. The court granted permission for the reconstruction of the demolished properties at the petitioners' expense, provided they submit an undertaking stating that they will file appeals within the required timeframe. The petitioners also agreed that they would not claim ownership rights over the land or create third-party interests. If their appeals fail, they must demolish the houses at their own cost.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitioners’ plea challenging the demolition. The petitioners, including advocate Zulfiqar Haider and professor Ali Ahmed, along with two widows and another individual, argued that the demolition was carried out unfairly. According to them, authorities issued demolition notices late on a Saturday night, and their homes were torn down the very next day, giving them no opportunity to challenge the order.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Forms National Task Force to Address Student Mental Health Concerns
The petitioners' counsel contended that the state wrongfully linked their land to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023. They maintained that they were not trespassers but lawful lessees who had applied for the conversion of their leasehold interest into freehold property.
Attorney General (AG) R. Venkatramani, representing the state, argued that the demolition was lawful, citing multiple notices issued since 2020.
"The first notice was given on December 8, 2020, followed by additional notices in January and March 2021. Hence, the argument that there was no due process is incorrect," the AG stated.
He further mentioned that many illegal occupants had continued to stay on government land despite their lease expiry or rejection of freehold applications.
Despite the AG’s defense, the Supreme Court remained critical of the manner in which the demolitions were carried out. Justice Oka firmly stated:
"The state must act fairly and provide reasonable time for affected individuals to file appeals before their structures are demolished. A notice was served on March 6, and the demolition was executed on March 7. This is unacceptable. We will allow them to reconstruct."
The AG cautioned that such an order could be misused by other unauthorized occupants. However, the bench emphasized that the court could not tolerate such hasty demolitions, as it could set a dangerous precedent.
"It shocks the conscience of the court that within 24 hours of the notice, the demolition was carried out," Justice Oka remarked.
The court also pointed out that the notices were improperly served. Only the final notice was delivered through a legally recognized method—registered post—whereas previous notices were merely affixed to the properties, which is not in compliance with the law.
"We will pass an order permitting reconstruction at the petitioners' own cost. If their appeal is unsuccessful, they must remove the structures at their own expense. The state should not support such unlawful actions," Justice Oka clarified.
Earlier, the Allahabad High Court ruled against the petitioners, citing that the disputed land was a Nazul Plot leased in 1906, with the lease expiring in 1996. Applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019, and the state had designated the land for public use. The High Court concluded that the structures were unauthorized and dismissed the petitions.
The Supreme Court, however, took a firm stance against the state's actions. The case has been scheduled for further hearing on March 21, 2025.
Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari along with Advocate Rooh-e-hina Dua (AOR), Advocate Atif Suhrawardy, Advocate Syed Mehdi Imam (AOR) represented the petitioners.
Case no. – Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Case Title – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6466/2021
