Petitioner’s letter regarding alleged illegal demolition of his house converted into suo moto writ petition – Certain portion of Petitioner’s house came to be notified as a part of road widening project (NH No. 370) in 2012 – Project sanctioned in 2018 – Petitioner directed between June 2019 to 6 September 2019 through Munadi announcement (by beat of drums) to remove his illegal encroachment from NH No. 370 – Petitioner’s family made requests to District Magistrate against demolition by relying on an 1975 interim order of Allahabad High Court in a writ petition ordering no demolition of Petitioner’s house except “in accordance with some statutory provisions of law and after giving to the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of showing cause” – Writ petition later dismissed in default – Petitioner’s family sought compensation from District Magistrate in the event of demolition – On 12 September 2019, Petitioner’s family called to remove all their belongings and on 13 September 2019, demolition took place – Legality thereof challenged by Petitioner’s family before High Court and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
NHRC ordered enquiry and report thereof inter-alia revealed violation of natural justice during demolition as no prior notice was given – Demolition was done beyond the alleged area of encroachment – No compensation awarded – State agency’s claim as regards width of the road in front of house being 32 m found contrary to NH-PWD’s records and revenue records wherein such width was stated to be only 16 m: Held: The Court held that the demolition was high-handed and without the authority of law as State agency failed to give prior written notice and also failed to disclose: (i) actual extent of encroachment; (ii) width of the existing road and that of the notified highway; (iii) extent of Petitioner’s property which fell within the notified width; and justification for demolition beyond encroached area – Such demolition is a threat to the legal right to property recognized under Article 300A and is unsustainable in a civilised system of jurisprudence. [Paras 25-29]
The Court issued guidelines which require state authorities to mandatorily: (i) ascertain width of existing road in terms of official records/maps; (ii) conduct a survey to identify possible encroachment thereon; (iii) issuing a proper, written notice to the encroachers to remove the encroachment; (iv) on receiving any objection from notice regarding correctness/validity of the notice, decide the objection by a speaking order by following principles of natural justice; (v) If the objection is rejected, give a reasonable notice to the person affected and if such a person fails to act, he must be proceeded against in accordance with law, to remove the encroachment unless restrained by an order of the competent authority or court; and (vi) If the existing width of road including the State land adjoining the road is not sufficient to accommodate the widening of the road, steps must be taken by the State to acquire the land in accordance with law before undertaking the road widening exercise. [Para 30]
On facts, the Court awarded punitive damages of INR 25 lakhs to the Petitioner as interim measures and directed the Chief Secretary of the State to conduct an inquiry against erring officers and contractors – Not only in relation to Petitioner’s house but also in relation to any other similarly situated property in the concerned area – The implementation of these directions was directed to be initiated within a month. [Paras 31-33]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Niti Richhariya, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.