2019 demolition case: Supreme Court slams UP authorities, directs it pay Rs 25 lakh to house owner

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra further asked the UP chief secretary to conduct an inquiry into the matter pertaining to the illegal demolition in Maharajganj district.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to compensate a journalist with Rs 25 lakh for razing down his house in 2019 for a road widening project, saying, “you can't come with a bulldozer and demolish the house overnight” without following due process.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra pulled up the state authorities for their "high-handedness" in making the announcement on the site before the demolition and termed it “lawlessness”.

The court said the state authorities cannot simply walking into somebody's house and demolish it without notice.

The bench directed the UP chief secretary to conduct an inquiry into illegal demolition in Maharajganj district.

The court registered a suo motu writ petition in 2020 based on a letter complaint sent by journalist Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, whose house in District Maharajganj was demolished in 2019.

Senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar and advocate Shubham Kulshreshtha represented Aakash before the apex court.

The state government claimed that the Aakash had encroached upon the public land.

"You say that he was an encroacher of 3.7 metres. We take it, we are not giving him a certificate for it. But, how can you start demolishing people's houses like that,” the bench asked the state counsel.

The bench questioned the state authorities on failing to follow the due process as it was claimed no notice was issued. “You only went to the site and informed the people through loudspeaker,” the court asked the state government.

The court was informed that over 100 other constructions were also demolished and people were just given information through public announcements.

The bench felt the authorities were supposed to give time to families to vacate.

"What about the household articles? There has to be due process followed,” the bench said.

The court also relied upon a report of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that, at the highest, there was an encroachment of 3.70 metres but it was not a justification to demolish the entire house. The commission had recommended the grant of interim compensation to the petitioner, registration of FIR in the issue, and initiation of departmental action against the officers.

By directing compensation, the court directed that the copy of the court order should be circulated to all states/union territories.