In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India expressed shock over the Uttar Pradesh government’s swift demolition of houses in Prayagraj within just 24 hours of issuing a notice to the occupants. The court found this action to be highly problematic, stating that it “shocks the conscience” of the judiciary.
The two-judge bench, led by Justice A S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing an appeal challenging a 2021 Allahabad High Court order that dismissed a petition against the demolition. The petitioners, which included a professor, a lawyer, and three other individuals, argued that they had not been given adequate time to challenge the demolition.
The case stems from the demolition of houses on a Nazool plot, a government-owned land leased in 1906. The lease expired in 1996, and applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019. The Uttar Pradesh government argued that the land was reserved for public use, and the petitioners had no legal rights to the property due to the lack of district collector approval for their transactions.
Justice Oka, while delivering the judgment, criticized the manner in which the notices were served. He pointed out that the demolition was carried out just a day after the notice was delivered, without giving the residents a reasonable opportunity to appeal. The court emphasized that the state must act fairly and provide adequate time for individuals to challenge such decisions before taking any drastic action.
Although the state’s Attorney General R Venkatramani defended the government, stating that prior notices were served in 2020 and early 2021, the court was unconvinced by the argument. The bench noted that only one of the three notices was delivered via registered post, while others were simply affixed to the premises.
As a result, the Supreme Court decided that the affected residents should be allowed to reconstruct their homes at their own cost. However, the court also warned that if the appeal fails, the properties must be demolished at the appellants’ expense.
The court concluded by stressing that such actions by the state should not be supported, as it would set a dangerous precedent if tolerated. The judgment underscores the importance of due process and the fair treatment of citizens in legal matters related to property rights.
