The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Prayagraj Development Authority to compensate six individuals whose homes were illegally demolished. The Court termed the demolitions as "inhumane and illegal" and directed a payment of Rs. 10 lakh to each affected person.
The Court emphasized that the right to shelter is an essential component of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
“The authorities and especially the development authority must remember that the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India… Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants,” the judgment stated.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the demolitions were executed in blatant disregard for due process.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Criticizes UP Government for Rapid Demolition, Allows Reconstruction
The Court criticized the method in which the authorities served demolition notices. The show-cause notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was issued on December 18, 2020, and affixed the same day. However, the proper procedure of personal service or registered post was not followed.
“This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” remarked Justice Oka, condemning the practice of merely affixing notices without ensuring they are properly received.
The demolition order dated January 8, 2021, was also affixed but not sent by registered post. The first attempt to send a registered post communication occurred on March 1, 2021, and was received on March 6, 2021. Shockingly, the demolition was carried out the next day, depriving the appellants of any opportunity to appeal.
“The object of the proviso to Section 27(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before demolition. This is no way of granting a reasonable opportunity,” the Court ruled.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Advises Two UP Journalists to Seek Alternate Legal Remedies Against FIRs
The Supreme Court referred to the 2024 ruling in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, which laid down guidelines for serving notices. However, since the demolition occurred in 2021, the Court interpreted Section 43 of the UP Planning Act, which mandates that genuine efforts must be made to serve notice in person before resorting to affixing it on the premises.
“When the provision talks about a person who cannot be found, it is obvious that genuine efforts are required to be made for affecting service in person… It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the house and affixes it after finding that on that day the person concerned is not available,” the Court stated.
The Court stressed that repeated efforts must be made to serve notice personally, and only if these fail, affixing the notice or sending it by registered post becomes an option.
During an earlier hearing on March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court had considered allowing the appellants to reconstruct their homes if they undertook to demolish them at their own cost if their appeals were dismissed. However, the appellants informed the Court that they lacked financial resources and sought compensation instead.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Orders Massive Reshuffle: 582 Judges Transferred Across Uttar Pradesh
The Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, opposed the plea, arguing that the affected individuals had alternate accommodations. However, the Court rejected this justification.
“We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation of ₹10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” said Justice Oka.
The Supreme Court also clarified that it had not ruled on the ownership rights of the appellants.
“It is open to the appellants to file appropriate proceedings for establishing their title and interest in respect of the subject property,” the Court noted.
The Prayagraj Development Authority was directed to “scrupulously follow” the guidelines laid down in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures to prevent future illegal demolitions.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies Lalita Kumari Judgment: Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Before FIR in All Cases
Background of the Case
The appellants had initially argued that their properties were wrongfully linked to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023, and that the demolition was carried out without proper notice. The Uttar Pradesh government maintained that the structures were unauthorized and that the occupants had overstayed their leases.
Previously, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed their challenge, accepting the State’s argument that their lease had expired in 1996 and their freehold applications were rejected in 2015 and 2019. However, the Supreme Court found procedural lapses in the demolition process and ruled in favor of the appellants.
Case no. – Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Case Title – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6466/2021
