Demolition of property by the state: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Rulings of the Superior Courts
SC criticises bulldozer justice/ 2024
The Supreme Court of India once again criticised the concept of “bulldozer justice" in the country, observing that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a country where the law is supreme.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti said the court cannot be oblivious to actions that may be seen as “running a bulldozer over the laws of the land”.
The court made strong observations while hearing a case related to the attempted demolition of an ancestral house in Gujarat’s Kheda district because of the alleged involvement of a family member in a criminal incident.
The petitioner, Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed, has claimed that the Kathlal Nagar Palika had issued a notice of demolition on September 6 — four days after a first information report (FIR) was lodged against his brother on charges of sexual harassment and assault.
In his petition, Saiyed contended that the demolition was intended to punish the family for criminal charges slapped on one member of the family.
During Thursday's hearing, the Supreme Court said that alleged involvement in a crime is not grounds for demolishing properties.
"In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally-constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for the demolition of a property.”
"Moreover, the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a court of law. The court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise, such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land," it added.
The bench then stayed the demolition and sought explanations from the concerned authorities within a month. "In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner's property is to be maintained by all concerned," the apex court ordered.
Lately, in a growing trend, local governments and police have been demolishing properties of people accused of crimes, and, sometimes, of their families, often using earthmovers or bulldozers, without following due process.
Previous observations against bulldozer justice
On September 2, the Supreme Court had said it would issue guidelines to regulate demolitions across India. A bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan questioned how a house could be demolished simply because someone is accused of a crime. The bench had noted that even a conviction does not justify such an action without following proper legal procedures.
“How can a house be demolished just because he is accused? It cannot be demolished even if he is a convict... A father may have a recalcitrant son, but if the house is demolished on this ground...this is not the way to go about it,” commented the bench, expressing concern that despite previous orders of the Supreme Court on due process, there were complaints being raised.
SC: Right to shelter fundamental, pay ₹10L for each bulldozed home/ 2025
AmitAnand Choudhary, April 2, 2025: The Times of India
New Delhi: Noting that a message has to be sent to “make govt authorities remember” that right to shelter is a fundamental right and rule of law is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, Supreme Court directed Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of Rs 10 lakh each to five people whose houses were illegally razed in 2021, setting a benchmark for the fine to be paid for resorting to what has come to be known as “bulldozer justice”.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the state govt’s plea to refrain from awarding compensation as the aggrieved people were not poor and owned multiple houses. Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the state, said the constructions were illegal and illegality should not be compensated.
The court said there was a procedure prescribed before demolition and the facts of the case were shocking as houses were razed within 24 hours of proper notices being served. The demolition was done on March 7, 2021, in which the houses of a lawyer, a professor and others were razed. Notice was served to them on March 6.
‘These cases shock our conscience’: SC on illegal Prayagraj demolitions
Authorities, especially the development authority, must remember that the right to shelter is a fundamental right and an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. They should also know that there is something called rule of law which is a basic feature of the Constitution, the SC bench said.
As stated earlier, no effort was made to serve them notices in person or by registered post. Only communication dated March 1 was sent by registry which was received on March 6 and demolition was carried out on March 7. The applicant was deprived to avail the appeal against the decision. Therefore, demolition is illegal, the bench added. “Considering the inhuman and illegal manner in which demolition was carried out, we quantify the compensation of Rs 10 lakh each to the appellants and direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation to the appellants,” court said. It added that the practice of affixing notice on the house had to stop which could be done as a last resort after notice could not be served in person.
The bench said “these cases shock our conscience and this should never happen”. Justifying its harsh order against Prayagraj Development Authority, the bench said this would discourage the authority from carrying out such exercises without following due procedure.
The petitioners in the case are advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed and three other individuals. They moved the apex court after Allahabad HC dismissed their plea against the demolition. Granting them relief, the court said Section 27 of UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, states that if a building is constructed in violation of the master plan or without proper approvals, the development authority may order its demolition after providing the owner with a reasonable opportunity to show cause.
In the previous hearing, the court had said that the state must act “very fairly and must give reasonable time to enable the aggrieved person to file an appeal before the structures are demolished”.
