The Supreme Court has issued a strong rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh government, ordering it to pay Rs 25 lakh in compensation after authorities demolished a resident’s home without proper notice. This decision came as part of a case dating back to 2019, when a Maharajganj resident, Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, had his house torn down to make way for road expansion. The Supreme Court’s suo motu writ petition, initiated in response to Aakash’s letter of complaint, underscores its stand against what it described as a “high-handed” approach by the authorities.
During the hearing, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud criticized the UP government for bypassing the legal requirement of prior notice before demolitions. The Court noted that authorities only informed residents via loudspeaker announcements, a method that fails to meet the standards of due process. CJI Chandrachud questioned the lack of formal notification, deeming the act “lawlessness” and emphasizing that even in cases where individuals are alleged to have encroached on public land, the state is still obligated to follow established procedures.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala echoed these sentiments, highlighting the unjust nature of overnight demolitions that provide residents no time to prepare or secure belongings. The Court stressed that even if the property was partially built on disputed land—an argument raised by the government—the authorities still had no legal grounds to proceed without a fair warning. This disregard for protocol, the Supreme Court pointed out, violates fundamental rights and undermines trust in the legal process.
As part of the ruling, the Supreme Court has mandated an inquiry into the actions of the officials and contractors responsible, directing the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to take disciplinary measures against those involved. This landmark decision not only upholds citizens’ rights but also sends a clear message that procedural lapses, especially in cases of government action against private property, will not be tolerated. The case has sparked significant public attention, bringing to light the broader concerns surrounding demolition drives in the state and reinforcing the necessity of legal safeguards in government operations.
