Citation : 2025 (4) KLR SC 11 : 2025 INSC 480
Court : Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench : Abhay S. Oka, J.; Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Date of Judgment : April 1, 2025
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 4590 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6466 of 2021) and connected appeals

Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 – Sections 27, 43 – Demolition of Residential Structures – Procedural Requirements – Right to Shelter – Article 21, Constitution of India – Rule of Law:

Demolition of appellants’ residential structures by Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) held illegal and arbitrary due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards under Sections 27 and 43 of the 1973 Act. Show-cause notice and demolition order affixed without multiple attempts at personal service, violating requirement to ensure person “cannot be found”. Demolition within 24 hours of serving subsequent communication denied appellants opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2). Action breached principles of natural justice, right to shelter under Article 21, and rule of law. PDA directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000 costs per appeal, comply with demolition guidelines, and provide demolition order copy. Appellants permitted to pursue further remedies for land rights and compensation.

Cases Referred: In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.

Table of Contents

Facts

The appellants’ residential structures were demolished by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, purportedly for unauthorized construction. A show-cause notice was issued on December 18, 2020, and allegedly affixed on the same day without multiple attempts at personal service. A demolition order was passed on January 8, 2021, also affixed without proper service. A subsequent communication dated March 1, 2021, was sent by registered post and served on March 6, 2021. The demolition was carried out on March 7, 2021, within 24 hours of service, denying the appellants the opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act.

Issues

Whether the demolition process complied with the procedural requirements under Section 27 and Section 43 of the 1973 Act.
Whether the demolition violated the appellants’ right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the appellants were denied a reasonable opportunity to show cause and avail appellate remedies.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the demolition was illegal and arbitrary, violating the appellants’ right to shelter under Article 21. The PDA failed to follow due process, including proper service of notices and providing adequate time for appeal, constituting a breach of natural justice and the rule of law.

Reasoning

Improper Service of Notice: Under Section 43(1)(d) of the 1973 Act, service of notices requires genuine efforts to personally serve the individual. Only if the person “cannot be found” after multiple attempts can the notice be affixed or sent by registered post. The PDA’s action of affixing the show-cause notice and demolition order on the same day they were issued, without repeated efforts at personal service, violated statutory requirements.
Denial of Reasonable Opportunity: The proviso to Section 27(1) mandates a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The lack of proper notice service and the rushed demolition within 24 hours of serving the March 1, 2021 communication deprived the appellants of this opportunity.
Violation of Appellate Rights: Section 27(2) provides a right to appeal within 30 days of a demolition order. The failure to serve the January 8, 2021 order and the hasty demolition on March 7, 2021, prevented the appellants from exercising this right.
Constitutional Violation: The right to shelter is integral to Article 21. Demolishing residential structures without due process constitutes “bulldozer justice” and undermines the rule of law, a basic feature of the Constitution.
Subsequent Guidelines: The Court referred to its decision in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, which mandates a minimum 15-day period after proper notice service before demolition. Although this decision was subsequent, the 1973 Act’s provisions already required similar diligence.

Disposition

The impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated March 8, 2021, was set aside.
The PDA was directed to:
1. Follow the demolition guidelines from In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.
2. Pay costs of Rs. 10,00,000 per appeal to the appellants within six weeks, with 6% annual interest from the filing date of the Special Leave Petitions if unpaid.
3. Provide a copy of the demolition order to the appellants.
The appellants were permitted to pursue further proceedings to establish their rights to the land and claim compensation for the illegal demolition.

Key Legal Principles

Due Process: Statutory authorities must strictly adhere to procedural requirements for notice and service before taking drastic actions like demolition.
Right to Shelter: Protected under Article 21, this right cannot be violated without following the rule of law and principles of natural justice.

Rule of Law: Arbitrary actions by state authorities, such as summary demolitions, are antithetical to constitutional governance.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

What was the primary reason the Supreme Court declared the demolition of the appellants’ structures illegal in Zulfiqar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.?
a) The structures were not unauthorized.
b) The demolition was carried out without proper notice and opportunity to appeal.
c) The PDA lacked authority under the 1973 Act.
d) The appellants had valid construction permits.
Answer: b) The demolition was carried out without proper notice and opportunity to appeal.
Which constitutional provision was cited by the Supreme Court as violated by the demolition?
a) Article 14
b) Article 19
c) Article 21
d) Article 32
Answer: c) Article 21
Under Section 43 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, what is required before a notice can be affixed to a structure?
a) A single attempt at personal service.
b) Multiple genuine efforts to personally serve the person.
c) Approval from the District Magistrate.
d) A court order.
Answer: b) Multiple genuine efforts to personally serve the person.
What remedy was provided to the appellants against the demolition order under Section 27 of the 1973 Act?
a) A writ petition to the High Court.
b) An appeal to the Chairman within 30 days.
c) A complaint to the State Government.
d) A civil suit for damages.
Answer: b) An appeal to the Chairman within 30 days.
What was the cost imposed on the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) per appeal?
a) Rs. 5,00,000
b) Rs. 7,50,000
c) Rs. 10,00,000
d) Rs. 15,00,000
Answer: c) Rs. 10,00,000
Which prior Supreme Court decision was referenced to outline demolition guidelines?
a) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
b) In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures
c) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
d) Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.
Answer: b) In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures
What action was the PDA directed to take regarding future demolitions?
a) Obtain court approval before demolition.
b) Follow the guidelines in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.
c) Compensate all affected parties automatically.
d) Suspend all demolition activities.
Answer: b) Follow the guidelines in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.
What was the consequence if the PDA failed to pay the costs within six weeks?
a) A fine of Rs. 1,00,000.
b) Interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the Special Leave Petitions.
c) Contempt of court proceedings.
d) Suspension of PDA officials.
Answer: b) Interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the Special Leave Petitions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What was the main issue in Zulfiqar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.?
The case centered on the illegal demolition of the appellants’ residential structures by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Supreme Court found that the PDA failed to follow due process, including proper notice service and providing an opportunity to appeal, violating the appellants’ right to shelter under Article 21.
Why did the Supreme Court find the demolition process illegal?
The demolition was deemed illegal because the PDA did not adhere to the procedural requirements under Sections 27 and 43 of the 1973 Act. The show-cause notice and demolition order were affixed without multiple attempts at personal service, and the demolition was executed within 24 hours of serving a subsequent communication, denying the appellants a reasonable opportunity to respond or appeal.
What role did Section 43 of the 1973 Act play in the judgment?
Section 43 outlines the requirements for serving notices. It mandates that if a person cannot be found after genuine multiple efforts, the notice may be affixed or sent by registered post. The Court held that the PDA’s immediate affixing of notices without such efforts violated this provision, rendering the service invalid.
How did the demolition violate Article 21 of the Constitution?
The right to shelter is an integral part of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The arbitrary and highhanded demolition of the appellants’ homes without due process was held to infringe this constitutional right, constituting “bulldozer justice” and a breach of the rule of law.
What guidelines from In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures were referenced?
The Court cited guidelines requiring a show-cause notice with a minimum 15-day response period, service by registered post and affixing, digital intimation to the District Magistrate, and transparency via a digital portal. Although a subsequent decision, these aligned with the 1973 Act’s requirements, which the PDA failed to follow.
What remedies were granted to the appellants?
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directed the PDA to pay Rs. 10,00,000 in costs per appeal, provide a copy of the demolition order, and follow the guidelines in In Re: Directions. The appellants were also allowed to pursue further proceedings to establish land rights and claim compensation for the illegal demolition.
Why was the PDA ordered to pay costs?
The costs were imposed due to the PDA’s “inhuman and illegal” demolition action, which disregarded statutory procedures and constitutional protections. The Rs. 10,00,000 per appeal was quantified to compensate for the appellants’ loss and deter such arbitrary actions in the future.
Can the appellants reconstruct their structures?
The Court initially suggested reconstruction subject to an undertaking that the structures would be demolished at the appellants’ cost if their appeal under Section 27(2) failed. However, the appellants stated they were unable to reconstruct, so the Court focused on costs and other remedies instead.
What is the significance of the term “bulldozer justice” in the judgment?
The term “bulldozer justice” was used to criticize the PDA’s highhanded and summary demolition of residential structures without due process. It reflects the Court’s disapproval of arbitrary state actions that violate the rule of law and constitutional rights.
What broader impact does this judgment have?
The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the rule of law in state actions, particularly demolitions. It emphasizes the protection of the right to shelter under Article 21 and sets a precedent for authorities to adhere to strict notice and appeal procedures, as reinforced by the guidelines in In Re: Directions.

Zulfiqar Haider v. State of Uttar Pradesh