The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a contempt petition that alleged violations of its judgment dated November 13, 2024, which restrained demolition actions across India without prior notice and a fair hearing. The petitioner was directed to seek redress from the jurisdictional High Court.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih stated:

"We are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petitioner, if aggrieved, can very well approach the jurisdictional High Court."

During the hearing, Justice Gavai questioned why the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court directly instead of the High Court, as permitted in the November judgment. The petitioner’s counsel responded, citing a conflicting view taken by the High Court in a batch of similar cases.

"I am completely clear of this batch, but the fact of the matter is that this order stares me in the face today... once the High Court has taken the view... I have no other remedy but to approach my Lords," the counsel argued.

The petitioner claimed ownership of the disputed land through a registered sale deed and asserted that only a tin shed had been erected on the property. However, despite receiving just one day's notice, the demolition proceeded without specifying the nature of the violation.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Directs Petitioner to Approach High Court in Contempt Case Over Demolition in Sambhal

Justice Gavai asked the petitioner’s counsel to present the sanction plan, which would clarify whether the construction was authorized. However, as the counsel stated that he needed instructions, the court declined to entertain the petition.

"Had you shown us the sanction plan, we would have entertained," remarked Justice Gavai.

Although the petitioner sought temporary relief to take necessary legal steps, the court refused to pass any directive.

This is not the first instance where the Supreme Court has dismissed such petitions. Earlier, a contempt petition against Uttar Pradesh authorities for violating the November judgment was also disposed of. The court reaffirmed that aggrieved persons have the liberty to approach jurisdictional High Courts.

However, in another recent case, the Supreme Court issued a notice to Uttar Pradesh authorities regarding alleged violations of the November judgment and ordered a stay on further demolitions. The decision was based on an SDM report indicating that the disputed construction adhered to a sanction plan, while unauthorized portions had already been removed by the petitioners.

Read Also:- Chandni Chowk Illegal Constructions | Supreme Court Warns Delhi Municipal Corporation, Suggests CBI Probe

Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment on Demolition Actions

In its ruling on November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court held that authorities cannot demolish properties solely because their owners are accused or convicted in a crime. The court issued a set of mandatory guidelines to be followed before any demolition:

• Show Cause Notice: No demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice. The notice should either comply with local municipal laws or provide at least 15 days for response, whichever is later.
• Personal Hearing: The designated authority must provide a personal hearing to the affected party. The hearing minutes must be recorded, and the final order should include the petitioner’s contentions, findings, and reasons for demolition. The order must explain whether the unauthorized construction is rectifiable or if complete demolition is the only option.
• Right to Appeal: If a demolition order is passed, the affected party must be given time to challenge it before the appropriate forum.

The Supreme Court also warned that violations of these directions would lead to contempt proceedings. Additionally, officers responsible for illegal demolitions would be held personally liable for restoring the demolished property at their own cost, along with paying damages.

"If a demolition is found to be in violation of the Court's orders, the responsible officers will face restitution charges at their personal cost," the Supreme Court ruled.

The court clarified that its directions would not apply in cases where:

• The unauthorized structure is on public land, such as roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies.
• A court of law has already issued an order regarding the demolition.

Case Title: VIKAS MAMANCHAND GOYAL vs. SHEKHAR SINGH AND ANR., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 60/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 295/2022.