State Governments With Impunity Have continued To Demolish Houses Of Persons Accused of Crimes: Allahabad HC
It is definitely a matter of extremely grave concern which cannot be ever just glossed over any longer now that none other than the Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court in not only just India among all the States, in not only just Asia, in not only just Asia and Europe, in not only just few continents, in not only just many continents but in all the continents all over the world in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Faimuddeen and 2 others vs State of UP and 7 others in Writ – C No. – 2229 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC: 147816-DB authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan that was pronounced just recently on July 20, 20245 has minced absolutely just no words whatsoever to hold indubitably that state governments with impunity have continued to demolish houses of persons accused of crimes despite Supreme Court directions to refrain from such punitive action. It was also explicitly held by the Court that such State action is “largely to satiate the perceived blood lust” of a society “fed on a staple diet of bulldozer justice” over the electronic media, social media and messaging platforms. To put it differently, the Bench was of the unequivocal view that, “The demolitions continue with impunity as though these judgments do not exist, or the State is certain that the defiance towards the law laid down by the highest Court of the land shall not visit them with any adverse consequences.” It definitely merits just no reiteration that bulldozing by bulldozer cannot be ever justified and must be bulldozed at the earliest unless there is a prima facie view for validly justifying it!
At the very outset, this robust judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “People face ruination in just making a home and you feel no remorse setting ablaze entire settlements ….Bashir Badr (passed away on: 28/05/2026)
“…….. For an average citizen, the construction of a house is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams, and aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security, and a future. Having a house or a roof over one’s head gives satisfaction to any person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging….” [Supreme Court In re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures – (2025) 5 SCC 1 – Paragraph 89.]
‘Home is where the heart and hearth is’, so it is said. It is where a warm meal awaits a man when he returns from a gruelling day’s work, it is where his wife (in the larger Indian context even today) feels a sense of pride and accomplishment as a sheet anchor of the family, holding it together through trying times, it is where his children have a stable and settled environment to study and progress in knowledge and ability, to contribute to the family, society and nation once they grow up, it is where his old parents rest blissfully in the evening of their lives making peace with the aches and pains only because of they have a home. A man can absorb the uncertainties of life and bounce back if he has a shelter over his head. Take that away abruptly without giving him adequate time to re-settle himself elsewhere, and you may have consigned, not just him, to the deepest abyss of despair, but all those dependent on him, whose normal rhythm of life was dictated by a sense of security of not having to bother about a safe shelter.”
It is worth pondering what the Bench observes in para 2 that, “The Supreme Court of India recently passed an epoch-making judgement in “In re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures” (2025) 5 SCC 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “bulldozer case”), to put an end to State action of razing the houses of those accused of a crime. This action by the State is largely to satiate the perceived blood lust of a society fed on a staple diet of bulldozer justice over the electronic media, social media and messaging platforms, on account of which the State of Uttar Pradesh (and now several others), has found it convenient to raze the dwelling place of citizens in the name of irradicating “land mafia” and removing “illegal encroachments”, a phrase substituting the word “criminals” after the Supreme Court judgement against demolition of dwelling places of persons accused of crime. This judgement was followed up by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine 3767 and supplementary directions were passed. While the bulldozer case was to prevent and regulate the demolishment of dwelling place of the accused after the commission of an offence, the judgment in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya issued directions in paragraph 21 of far reaching consequences to prevent the mushrooming of illegal dwelling places.”
Most commendably, the Bench points out in para 3 that, “Two situations emerge for consideration before this Court. The First relates to the demolition of dwelling places of persons accused of a crime. The Second is demolition of dwelling places (residence and/or place of business) which have existed for long, under the pretext that they are illegal encroachments on government land. However, the judgment of the Supreme Court notwithstanding, the demolition of structures continue at will, with the State running through the mandatory directions of the Supreme Court in the case abovementioned within a couple of months and then demolishing the structure even before the affected citizen has a fighting chance to approach the courts for succour. This decision of the Supreme Court notwithstanding, the executive continues with its actions of demolishing homes across the country with impunity, and therefore this judgement aims to curtail all demolitions of dwelling places in the State of Uttar Pradesh by inter alia adopting all the directions of the Supreme Court passed In re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures and Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors., as direction of this Court and ensure that all future demolitions of dwelling places in the State Uttar Pradesh are strictly in accordance with the directions of Supreme Court, passed in aforementioned judgements and the judgement of this Court, and any violation of the same, the citizen so affected can sustain a contempt petition before this Court instead of approaching the Supreme Court.”
As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 32 mentioning that, “The irony of this picture is that while the Constitution Courts acknowledge that a citizen’s right to shelter is a fundamental right, it can still be demolished for being violative of the municipal laws. There however is a limitation upon all fundamental rights which the Courts have consistently held as reasonable for rights are not absolute and can be curtailed or extinguished as per procedure established by law. Thus, the fundamental right to shelter can be trumped (no pun intended) if the property is not compliant of the municipal laws.”
DIRECTIONS
Do note, the Bench notes in para 72 that, “This Court adopts the directions given in paragraphs 94, 94.1 to 94.15 and 95 to 97, by the Supreme Court In re, Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures – (2025) 5 SCC 1.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 73 that, “This Court also adopts the direction given in paragraph 21 by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others – 2024 SCC OnLine 3767.”
Most significantly, the Bench envisages in para 74 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “As it has been held by this Court that rushing to demolish the dwelling place of a person accused of an offence under the garb of the same being violative of municipal laws, is impermissible the same being a retributive exercise of executive discretion and so, no action may be taken to demolish his house for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR and during the hiatus of two years, as the immediate action, rather than to reclaim State land, is to satiate the presumable public anger immediately following the offence which would dissipate with the passage of time, and the State may no longer feel the necessity to destroy the property. After two years, the State can examine, as the Supreme Court has mandated in the bulldozer case, that the final order must reflect the reasons whether compounding of the deviations is possible the property and if compounding is not possible, then it shall abide by the direction of the Supreme Court in the bulldozer case which has been adopted by this Court as part of this order at paragraph 73 supra.”
While adding a rider, the Bench stipulates in para 75 observing that, “If however, the removal is necessary for reclaiming the land for public purpose and such action it is not restricted to the house of accused alone, then it permissible, subject to compliance with direction given by the Supreme Court in the bulldozer case (paragraph 73 supra), to move for demolition in accordance with law, in which case the hiatus of two years before taking action, shall not be binding.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 76 that, “As regards removal of dwelling places which are illegal constructions, the State shall follow the direction of the Supreme Court in the bulldozer case in paragraph 67 supra with one additional condition – that where the violater has stayed in the illegal structure for three years or more, the authority shall intimate the violater one year before the initiation of procedure under the municipal law and the dispatch of intimation through notice shall be as directed by the Supreme Court in the bulldozer case. This is essential so as to give reasonable notice of intent on the part of the State so as to enable the violater a full one year to resettle himself elsewhere, however, the prior intimation of one year’s notice before initiating procedure under the municipal law may be waived where there is “compelling urgency” of larger public need to be justified by the State. This is necessary as the State is particeps criminis by assisting the violater through “connivance” (as has been held by the Supreme Court in the two judgments mentioned hereinabove which is a euphemism for blatant corruption) to build the offending structure, give electricity and water supply which even today is largely a sovereign function.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 77 noting that, “Additionally, In case notices are issued for the violation of the construction norms, the same shall only be valid if simultaneous proceedings are also initiated against the erring officers inter alia under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The disciplinary action against the erring officer shall also be initiated and the same shall also be required to brought to its logical end, adhering to the procedures prescribed within a reasonable time and in any case not later than 6 months, from the date of initiation of the proceedings/issuance of notice for the violation of the construction norms; needless to say that for demolishing the construction, it shall abide by the directions of the Apex Court in the Bulldozer case, which this Court has also adopted, as part of this order at Paragraph No.73 (supra).”
Most remarkably, the Bench propounds in para 78 holding that, “The action of the development authority, shall not reflect in any manner that it is only against an individual, while ignoring a similar violation in the vicinity, with respect to the other constructions; and if such will be the case, the aggrieved person, shall be at liberty to approach this Court, alleging ‘retributive exercise of executive discretion’ and violation of the fundamental rights.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 79 that, “As regards the Petitioners in the present case, proceedings for demolishment of their Residence and Lodge stand quashed as the said proceedings are hit by retributive exercise of executive discretion, and no proceedings shall be initiated for two years from the date of registration of the FIR relevant in this case. In the event, there is need for removing these structures before two years for proved public purpose (not beyond reasonable doubt, but on the basis of documents and affidavits), then the same may be done by complying with the directions in paragraph 75 supra.”
For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 80 observing that, “As regards the proceedings against the Petitioners under the Forest Act in relation to the sealing of their saw mill on account of recovering wood of protected trees, the same shall continue unaffected by this order.”
It merits noting that the Bench notes in para 81 directing and holding that, “This order shall be communicated to the Chief Secretary of the State for onward dispatch to all the relevant offices in the districts for strict compliance.”
Quite significantly, the Bench directs and holds in para 82 that, “Any violation of the direction herein, would result in contempt proceedings against the officer concerned which may be filed before this Court.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 83 that, “Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court has made it indubitably clear that bulldozing justice continue with impunity to satiate bloodlust of society. But in the same vein, it has also made it crystal clear that it will now not tolerate any longer whimsical bulldozing by bulldozers which was earlier prohibited by Apex Court in its rulings as has been mentioned hereinabove unless done in a proper manner and as directed by the top court earlier in its various rulings! No denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
