Demolitions in Prayagraj inhuman and illegal, shock conscience, says SC, orders Rs 10-lakh each in 6 weeks

Saying that the appellants were not given a “reasonable opportunity” to explain their position, the SC said: “These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished… Carrying out demolition in such a manner shows insensitivity on the part of the statutory development authority… The authorities, and especially the development authority, must remember that the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The HC had noted that the matter concerned a Nazul plot (government land for public purpose) leased in 1906. It noted that after the lease expired in 1996, applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019, and there was nothing on record to show that the constructions were carried out with the sanction of the municipal/ local/ development authority.

While the SC did not comment on the land rights, it criticised the manner in which the demolition notice was served to the occupants. The local authorities had affixed the notice on the premises, saying the occupants could not be tracked.

According to the petitioners, they received a notice dated March 1, 2021, which said that as per an earlier notice dated January 8, 2021, sent to them, they were required to demolish the unauthorised structures before January 27, 2021, and the demolitions would now be carried out at their expense. The petitioners said the January 8, 2021, notice was not served on them.

The demolitions were carried out on March 7, 2021.

While noting that Section 43 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act allows a notice to be pasted on a person’s last known place of residence/ business or tendered to an adult member of the family/office, the SC said there should be genuine efforts to serve a notice in person first.

“When the provision talks about a person who cannot be found, it is obvious that genuine efforts are required to be made for affecting service in person. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the house and affixes it after finding that on that day the person concerned is not available. It is obvious that repeated efforts have to be made to make personal service. Only if those efforts fail, then there are two options available. One is of affixing and the second is of sending by registered post,” it said.

“This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” Justice Oka said, adding that those affected were not even given 24 hours notice.

The bench said the showcause notice, under Section 27 of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was issued on December 18, 2020, and affixed the same day, with the remark that two attempts had been made to serve it in person. The notice asked the residents to appear in person the same day, the SC said.

Attorney General R Venkataramani, who appeared for the state, said the date mentioned was December 28, but the court said “we find clear overwriting in the notice”.

A subsequent order of demolition was also affixed on January 8, 2021, but not sent by registered post, the court said.

“The object of proviso to subsection 1 of section 27 is that reasonable opportunity of showing cause should be granted to the person whose structure is sought to be demolished. This is no way of granting reasonable opportunity,” the SC said.

“Considering the illegal action of the demolition, which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of Rs 10 lakh each to the appellants,” the SC said, as it set aside the notices and the HC order.

The SC left it open to the appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari and Advocate Roohehina Dua, to file appropriate proceedings for establishing their title and interest with regard to the property.

At the last hearing, the SC had suggested to the counsel for appellants that it may permit them to reconstruct the structures, subject to an undertaking that if their appeal was dismissed, these would have to be demolished at their cost.

On Tuesday, the counsel said the appellants were not in a position to reconstruct. Taking note, the SC said: “In view of this statement now, there is no question of again directing the planning authority to follow the process of law.”

Attorney General Venkataramani said the appellants had alternate accommodations. Justice Oka , however, remarked orally: “We will record this whole thing as illegal and fix compensation of Rs 10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process.”

The bench also asked the authorities “to scrupulously follow the decision of the court” with regard to demolition of structures, wherein it has laid down the due process of serving notices beforehand.

During the hearing, the bench also mentioned a video clip circulated on social media that purportedly shows a girl running with books in her hand while a bulldozer razes her shanty as part of a recent anti-encroachment drive in UP’s Ambedkar Nagar.

“There is a recent video in which small huts are being demolished by bulldozers. There is a small girl running away from the demolished hut with a clutch of books in her hand. It has shocked everyone,” Justice Bhuyan observed orally.

The Prayagraj case

As per court records, Nazul Plot No. 19 at Lukerganj, in Allahabad (Prayagraj) municipality, was leased to one Shakir Hussain on March 19, 1906, by the Allahabad district collector. The lease was initially for 30 years, renewable for two successive periods of 30 years each, subject to an aggregate of 90 years.

According to the petitioners, Shakir Hussain transferred land rights to Kulsoom Begum, Mahmooda Begum and Kannez Fatima in 1960, with the district magistrate’s permission. Later, Kulsoom Begum and Kannez Fatima transferred their rights to Hazi Firoz Ahmad, father of gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmad who was gunned down in Prayagraj in April 2023, while Mahmooda Begum sold her share elsewhere.

One of the petitioners claimed to have purchased the property from Mahmooda Begum while the others claimed to have purchased it from different people.

In the HC, the state contended that after the rejection of applications for freehold rights, the name of the patta holder had been struck off the land revenue records, the plot was earmarked for public use and its possession already taken. The constructions were unauthorised, made with a view to grab state land, it said.

On the petitioners’ argument that they had purchased the land, the state told the HC that no permission was granted by the district collector for such sale.

In its March 2021 order, the HC had said: “There is no averment in the petition and no document has been brought on record to demonstrate that the transfer made in favour of any of the petitioners was with the permission of the district collector… Further, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the constructions… were raised with the previous sanction of the municipal or local authority or the development authority.”