It is most refreshing, most reinvigorating and so also certainly most reassuring to note that while according the paramount importance to fair play, compassion and humanity in the imparting of justice, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1294 of 2020 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 863 that was pronounced as recently as on November 6, 2024 in the exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction while most strongly, suavely and sharply criticizing the growing trend of punitive demolition of constructions in the country has minced just absolutely no words to hold in no uncertain terms that, “Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence and simply unacceptable under the rule of law.” It is really most heartwarming to note that the top court most explicitly has barred authorities from using bulldozers to demolish encroachments or illegal constructions for road projects across India without following due process, which includes serving prior notice, conducting adjudication, and awaiting court decisions. Without beating about the bush, the Bench of Apex Court headed by Hon’ble CJI Dr DY Chandrachud and also comprising of Hon’ble Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra who penned this most historic judgment said most bluntly, boldly and brilliantly that, “The days of announcing the removal of encroachments or illegal structures with drumbeaters or loudspeakers are over.”
This was held while lashing out at the Uttar Pradesh State Government for high-handedness after the Maharajganj Collector had demolished a house to widen NH-703. It also very firmly pointed out that, “Private properties need some protection and there has to be some accountability fixed for those resorting to demolitions using state power.” What really bowls me over completely is to note how most commendably, the Apex Court held that, “There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead.”
It must be borne in mind that the Apex Court made the key observations that pertained to a case which stemmed from a senior journalist writing a letter to the top court in 2019 complaining that his ancestral residential house was demolished without notice by authorities in Uttar Pradesh. What is even more elating to learn is that the Supreme Court awarded an interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the person whose house was demolished. To top it all, the Bench also directed the UP Chief Secretary to initiate inquiry into the illegal demolitions that were carried out by the Collector, other officials and the contractor in 2019.
What also deserves mentioning is that senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar told the Court that the NHRC’s directions for initiation of proceedings against wrongdoers has not yet been complied with and no compensation made to the petitioner – Manoj Tibrewal Akash for illegal demolition of his ancestral house. The petitioner had written to Apex Court on October 4, 2019 about the rampant incidents of illegal demolitions, which were taken up suo motu by the top court. The last hearing took place on January 4, 2021.
What must definitely attract our considerable attention is that while dusting off this case file nearly four years later, the Bench was aghast to note that no relevant material had been provided by the UP Government’s counsel – Tulika Mukherjee which concerned 123 houses, including that of the complainant for road widening project. While terming it “very high handed”, Hon’ble Mr Justice Pardiwala said that, “You can’t come with bulldozers and demolish houses overnight. You don’t give time to the family to vacate. What about the household articles? There has to be due process followed.” Absolutely right!
What really captivates me most is to read on the argument by State that Aakash encroached on public land, CJI Hon’ble Dr Chandrachud said that, “You say that he was an encroacher of 3.7 square metres. We take it. We are not giving him a certificate for it. But how can you start demolishing people’s houses like that? This is lawlessness…walking into somebody’s house and demolishing it without notice.” It is most heartening to note that apart from rapping UP State Government on the knuckles for house demolition without prior notice, the Apex Court ordered that the directions be complied with within a month!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by CJI Hon’ble Dr DY Chandrachud for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of himself, Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice Manoj Misra sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “On 04 October 2019, Shri Manoj Tibrewal, a senior journalist, addressed a letter to this Court complaining of the unlawful demolition of his ancestral residential house and shop described as House Number 117, Ward Number 16, Mohalla Hamid Nagar, District Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh by the authorities of the State. A suo motu Writ Petition was registered before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on the basis of the said letter [WP (Civil) No. 1294 of 2020].”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 15 that, “When the petitioner moved the NHRC by a letter dated 04 October 2019, a detailed enquiry ensued. The enquiry culminated in a report dated 3 February 2020, whereby the NHRC concluded that :
(i) No notice was given prior to the demolition, save and except for a public announcement through loudspeakers;
(ii) The house of the petitioner who was the complainant before the NHRC was constructed on land purchased by his grandfather in 1960 and 1964;
(iii) The spot inspections and measurements done by Revenue Department officials in the presence of the NHRC enquiry team revealed that the extent of the encroachment on Government land was about 3.70 meters in length and demolition of that limited extent was justified because the land was falling under a 16-meter-wide road;
(iv) However, the house was demolished beyond the extent of the encroachment of 3.70 meters and the actual demolition was in fact between 5 to 8 meters;
(v) No compensation has been tendered for the demolition of the property;
(vi) The demolition action commenced on 7 July 2019 and on 13 September 2019, the house, which was 16 meters from the center of the road was demolished; and
(vii) The video clip provided by the officials of NH-PWD revealed that household goods, as alleged by the complainant, were still in the house before the work of demolition commenced.”
Alarmingly, the Bench points out in para 16 that, “In this backdrop, the findings of the NHRC indicate that at the highest, demolition to the limited extent of 3.70 meters may have been justified on the ground of encroachment but there was no justification for the demolition beyond the 3.70 meters. The NHRC concluded that the government agency had failed to provide any documents to support that the road in front of the petitioner’s house was 32 meters (16 meters on each side from the centre of the road). The revenue records and the NH-PWD records revealed that the road width in front of the house was only 16 meters (8 meters on each side from the centre of the road). However, the District administration and officers demolished properties beyond the permissible extent, upto 32 meters (16 meters from the centre of the road on both sides) without authority of law.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 25 that, “The following position emerges from the narration of facts :
(i) The State of Uttar Pradesh has produced no document to establish the original width of the State Highway which was notified as NH 730, a National Highway;
(ii) No material has been produced by the State of Uttar Pradesh to indicate whether any enquiry or demarcation was carried to earmark the encroachments;
(iii) There is no material to indicate that the land had been acquired before the work of demolition was carried out beyond a statement on affidavit that there was ‘encroachment’;
(iv) The State has failed to disclose :
(a) The precise extent of the encroachment;
(b) The width of the existing road;
(c) The width of the notified highway;
(d) The extent of the property of the petitioner which actually fell within the notified width; and
(v) Any justification for why the demolition was required to be carried out beyond even the area of alleged encroachment as the report which has been submitted by the NHRC would indicate that the demolition was far in excess of the alleged encroachment which was to the extent of 3.70 meters.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 29 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment mandating that, “The petitioner has alleged that the demolition was a reprisal for a newspaper report which contained allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the construction of the road in question. We need not engage with this aspect, save and except to the extent that it supplies the background to the grievance of the petitioner. In any case, such high-handed and unilateral action by the State Government cannot be countenanced. Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The law does not undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public property and encroachments. There are municipal laws and town-planning legislation which contain adequate provisions for dealing with illegal encroachments. Where such legislation exists the safeguards which are provided in it must be observed. We propose to lay down certain minimum thresholds of procedural safeguards which must be fulfilled before taking action against properties of citizens. The state must follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures. Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter. Officials of the state who carry out or sanction such unlawful action must be proceeded against for disciplinary action. Their infractions of law must invite criminal sanctions. Public accountability for public officials must be the norm. Any action in respect of public or private property must be backed by due process of law.”
Most sagaciously, the Bench postulates in para 30 propounding precisely that, “Before acting in pursuance of a road widening project, the State or its instrumentalities must:
(i) Ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of official records/maps;
(ii) Carry out a survey/demarcation to ascertain whether there is any encroachment on the existing road with reference to the existing records/maps;
(iii) If an encroachment is found, issue a proper, written notice to the encroachers to remove the encroachment;
(iv) In the event that the noticee raises an objection with regard to the correctness or the validity of the notice, decide the objection by a speaking order in due compliance with the principles of natural justice;
(v) If the objection is rejected, furnish reasonable notice to the person against whom adverse action is proposed and upon the failure of the person concerned to act, proceed 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.”
On a most serious note, the Bench directs in para 31 holding that, “In the present case, we conclude that the entire process which was followed by the State was high handed. We, therefore, direct as follows:
(i) The State must make payment of punitive compensation;
(ii) The Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to have an enquiry conducted into the entire matter pertaining to the illegal demolition, against all concerned officers of the state and the contractors who are responsible for the illegal demolition. In addition, disciplinary action must be initiated against any officer who is found to be involved in the illegal demolition, not only of the house of the petitioner but of other similarly situated properties in the area which were similarly demolished without adequate notice; and
(iii) The Chief Secretary of the Government of UP shall lodge a First Information Report as directed by the NHRC. The FIR shall be investigated by the CB-CID.”
Most commendably, the Bench holds in para 32 directing that, “The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to pay the petitioner compensation in the amount of Rs twenty-five Lakhs, as an interim measure. By way of abundant caution, we clarify that this compensation shall not come in the way of the petitioner, should he choose to pursue any other proceedings which are available in law for compensation for the demolition and for the taking over of property without the authority of law.”
While coming down on officials who monitored demolition, the Bench directed in para 33 holding that, “The Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh shall, after conducting the enquiry, take suitable action including penal measures to ensure accountability of individual officials who have acted in violation of law. The implementation of these directions shall be initiated no later than within a period of one month from the date of this order. Disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within four months of initiation.”
What’s more, the Bench then directs in para 34 stating that, “The Registrar (Judicial) shall circulate a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories to ensure compliance with the directions which have been issued in regard to the procedure to be followed for the purpose of road widening in general.”
All told, we thus see that the Apex Court has bulldozed the merciless bulldozing of houses by bulldozers which cannot be ever justified or condoned on one pretext or the other as we see all those State Government who indulge in it try to do! Bulldozers cannot run over the law at any cost. Moreover, it is a settled proposition of law that tolerance of injustice in any form is a threat to justice in all forms. The top court has also made it indubitably clear that it will no longer take demolitions by bulldozers just lying down and will hold accountable all those at whose behest the demolition took place! Very rightly so!
Author Bio
