Summary
In a suo motu writ petition started on a journalist's letter, the Supreme Court held that the demolition of his ancestral house in Maharajganj for widening NH 730 was high-handed and without authority of law. There had been no written notice, no demarcation and no acquisition, and the demolition went beyond even the alleged encroachment. The Court ordered Rs 25 lakh interim compensation, an enquiry, disciplinary action and an FIR. It also laid down minimum procedural safeguards that States must follow before road-widening demolitions.
Issues
- Whether the demolition of the petitioner's house for widening NH 730 was carried out in accordance with law.
- What minimum procedural safeguards the State must observe before removing alleged encroachments in a road-widening project.
- What relief and accountability measures should follow an unlawful demolition.
Provisions considered
- Article 300A, Constitution of IndiaThe Court said that if demolitions without due process were allowed, the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would become a dead letter. Any action against public or private property must be backed by due process of law. (¶ 29)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe petition was registered suo motu under Article 32 on the petitioner's letter. The Court used this jurisdiction to award interim punitive compensation, direct an enquiry, disciplinary proceedings and an FIR, and issue general directions on road-widening procedure to all States and Union Territories. (¶¶ 1, 31, 32, 33, 34)
Held
- On the State's own disclosures, the demolition was high-handed and without authority of law. The State produced nothing to show the original width of the highway, any enquiry or demarcation of encroachments, or any acquisition of land. It did not disclose the extent of the encroachment or of the petitioner's property within the notified width. It gave no justification for demolishing far beyond the roughly 3.70 metres of alleged encroachment found by the NHRC. Only a public announcement by beat of drum preceded the demolition, with no written notice. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
- The law does not condone encroachment on public property, but the State must follow due process, including the safeguards in municipal and town-planning laws, before removing encroachments or unlawful structures. 'Bulldozer justice' is unacceptable under the rule of law. Demolitions used as selective reprisals threaten citizens' voices and their security in their homes. Officials who carry out or sanction unlawful demolitions must face disciplinary action and criminal sanction. (¶ 29)
- Before acting on a road-widening project, the State or its instrumentalities must: (i) find the existing road width from official records or maps; (ii) survey and demarcate to identify encroachments; (iii) serve a proper written notice on encroachers; (iv) decide any objection by a speaking order in line with natural justice; (v) if the objection is rejected, give reasonable notice before removing the encroachment in accordance with law, unless restrained by a competent authority or court; and (vi) acquire land in accordance with law if the existing road and adjoining State land are not wide enough. (¶ 30)
- The Court ordered Rs 25 lakh as interim punitive compensation. It added that this does not prevent the petitioner from pursuing any other legal remedy for compensation for the demolition and the taking of his property without authority of law. (¶¶ 31, 32)
Result
Writ petition disposed of. The State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to pay Rs 25 lakh interim compensation. The Chief Secretary must hold an enquiry against the officers and contractors responsible, including for similar demolitions in the area, and lodge the FIR directed by the NHRC for investigation by the CB-CID. Action must begin within one month and disciplinary proceedings must finish within four months. The judgment was circulated to all States and Union Territories for compliance with the road-widening safeguards.