Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 – ss.27, 43 – Order of demolition of building – Services of notices, etc. – Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to shelter – Residential structures of the appellants demolished purportedly u/s.27 – Whether the demolition was illegal: Held: Yes – Demolition action is illegal and arbitrary violating the appellants’ right to shelter guaranteed by Art. 21 – Before a structure is demolished it is the duty of the officers of the PDA that every possible effort be made to effect a proper service of the show-cause notice – Repeated efforts have to be made to effect personal service – Only if those efforts fail, can the other two options of affixing and of sending by registered post be resorted to – Considering the drastic consequences provided in s.27, recourse should usually be taken to both modes – Moreover, after proper and effective service of the order of demolition, at least 15 days’ time must be provided to the owner or occupier to avail the remedy of an Appeal u/s.27(2) – In present case, no efforts were made to make the personal service of the show cause notice or sending it by registered post – The same is the case with the demolition order dated 08.01.2021 – On the very day, it was stated to be served by affixing – A copy thereof was not sent by the registered post – Only the communication dated 01.03.2021, was sent by the registered post, which was served upon the appellants on Saturday, 06.03.2021 – Within 24 hours of the service of the said communication, the structures were brazenly demolished on a Sunday – This deprived the appellants of their opportunity to avail of the remedy of appeal under subSection (2) of s.27– Residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished in such a summary manner without following the principles of natural justice – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Costs of Rs.10,00,000/- imposed on PDA to be paid in each appeal to the appellants with interest as directed. [Paras 9, 12-14, 17]
Words and Phrases – Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 – s.43(1)(d)(ii) – “if such person cannot be found” – Interpretation:
Held: Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of s.43 will apply in this case – It provides that if a person to whom the document is addressed is not found, it shall be affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place of residence or business, or it should be tendered to some adult member of his family – There is also an option provided to send the document by registered post – Clause (d)
(ii) uses the words “if such person cannot be found” – The words are not “if such a person is not found” – It is clear that only after genuine multiple efforts are made to find the person on more than one day, one can say that “the person cannot be found” – It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the address and affixes it after finding that on that day, the person concerned is unavailable at a given time. [Para 9] Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to shelter – Violation of, direction to PDA:
Held: Right to shelter is an integral part of Art. 21 – This right can be taken away only by following due process of law – Moreover, our country is governed by the rule of law, which is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution – The residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished in a summary manner without following the principles of natural justice – This is a case of bulldozer justice – PDA to scrupulously follow the directions in the case of in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures. [Paras 12, 14, 17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.