Can't bulldoze overnight: Supreme Court tells UP government

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday lambasted the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing an individual's house without following the legal procedure.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said that the demolition was "high handed and without authority of law".

The SC directed the UP government to pay ₹25 lakhs as punitive compensation and directed the state to initiate criminal proceedings against errant government officials and contractors.


The bench made it clear that its order ought to be complied with within a month.

The top court observed that the demolition was carried out without any notice or disclosure to the occupiers of the basis of the demarcation or the extent of demolition to be carried out.

The petitioner stated that the demolition was done only because he had flagged irregularities in road construction in a newspaper report. "Such action by the state cannot be countenanced and when dealing with private property, law has to be followed," the bench said.

Speaking for the bench, the CJI orally observed: "How can you just enter someone's home and demolish it without following the course of law or serving notice." According to the petitioner, his house was demolished without any prior notice or explanation for allegedly encroaching a highway.

The UP government, according to the bench, could not show the original width of the highway, the extent of any encroachment or proof that any land acquisition had been undertaken before initiating the demolition.

Further, an enquiry report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed that the demolition was far more extensive than the supposed encroachment.

The SC underscored that while carrying out road widening, the state must ascertain existing width of the road, issue formal notices if any encroachments are found, and give residents the opportunity to raise objections.

Any decision against an objection must come in the form of a reasoned order with sufficient time allowed for residents to vacate, the top court added.