Summary
The Prayagraj Development Authority demolished the appellants' residential structures under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 after merely affixing the show-cause notice and demolition order on the premises and bulldozing the buildings within 24 hours of the only communication actually served by registered post. The Supreme Court held that the demolition was illegal, arbitrary and violative of the right to shelter under Article 21, since service by affixation under Section 43(1)(d) is permissible only after genuine repeated efforts at personal service fail and the appellants were denied the statutory appeal under Section 27(2); the Authority was ordered to pay Rs 10 lakh costs in each appeal.
Issues
- Whether affixing a show-cause notice and demolition order on the structure on the first visit amounts to valid service under Section 43(1)(d) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
- Whether demolition within 24 hours of service of the demolition communication, denying the owner the appeal under Section 27(2), is lawful.
- Whether the demolition of residential structures without due process violates the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution and what relief should follow.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973The proviso to sub-section (1) requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause before a demolition order; sub-section (2) gives a 30-day appeal to the Chairman. Pasting the notice on the day of issue without multiple attempts at personal service was no reasonable opportunity, and demolition within 24 hours of the registered-post communication deprived the appellants of the appeal. After effective service of the demolition order at least 15 days must be allowed to appeal. (¶¶ 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Section 43(1)(d), Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973A notice may be affixed on the premises, tendered to an adult family member or sent by registered post only 'if such person cannot be found', which means after genuine, repeated efforts on more than one day to effect personal service have failed. Given the drastic consequences of Section 27, both affixation and registered post should usually be used. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe right to shelter is an integral part of Article 21 and can be taken away only by due process of law; summary demolition of residential structures without following natural justice and the rule of law violates it. (¶¶ 11, 13)
Held
- Under Section 43(1)(d) of the 1973 Act the words 'if such person cannot be found' (not 'is not found') mean that affixation or registered post may be resorted to only after genuine multiple efforts on more than one day to serve the person personally have failed; a process server who affixes the notice on finding the person absent at one visit has not complied. Before demolition every possible effort must be made to serve the show-cause notice properly. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The proviso to Section 27(1) requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause; a notice pasted on the day of issue without attempts at personal service or dispatch by registered post affords none. After proper service of a demolition order, at least 15 days must be given to avail the appeal under Section 27(2). (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- Demolition of residential structures by bulldozer within 24 hours of service of the demolition communication, on a Sunday, deprived the appellants of their statutory appeal, was completely illegal and arbitrary, violated the right to shelter under Article 21, and showed insensitivity by the statutory authority; the rule of law, part of the basic structure, does not permit such 'bulldozer justice'. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Since the appellants stated they were unable to reconstruct, no direction to follow due process afresh was warranted, but the Authority must be saddled with costs of Rs 10 lakh in each case for the inhuman and illegal demolition, and must scrupulously follow the directions in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024). The appellants remain free to establish their rights to the land and to claim compensation. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Result
Appeals disposed of; High Court order dated 08.03.2021 set aside. PDA directed to scrupulously follow the directions in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, to pay costs of Rs 10,00,000 in each appeal within six weeks (failing which interest at 6 per cent per annum from the filing of the SLPs), and to furnish the appellants a copy of the demolition order. Liberty to the appellants to pursue proceedings to establish their rights in the land and to claim compensation for the illegal demolition.