New Delhi [India], November 6 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the Uttar Pradesh government authorities for the illegal demolition of houses for road widening while terming the action by the state as "high-handed" and without authority of law.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also directed the UP government to grant punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to persons whose house was demolished.
"You can't come with bulldozers and demolish houses overnight. You don't give time family to vacate. What about the household articles? There has to be due process followed," said Justice Pardiwala during the hearing.
The bench further directed the Chief Secretary of the state to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against officers responsible for the illegal demolitions.
The apex court was hearing a suo motu case registered in 2020 based on a letter complaint sent by Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, whose house was demolished in 2019 by state authorities. He claimed that his house was demolished without any prior notice or explanation for allegedly encroaching on a highway.
As the state said that the petitioner had encroached public land, CJI Chandrachud quipped, "You say that he was an encroacher of 3.7 sq meters. 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..."
The bench said that no notice was served to the petitioner and no due process was followed.
"This is completely high-handed. Where is the due process followed? We have the affidavit that says no notice was issued, you only went to the site and informed the people through loudspeaker. You can't just with a beat of a drum tell people to vacate houses and demolish them. There has to be proper notice," said the bench to UP government.
The apex court took into note an inquiry report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which revealed that the demolition was far more extensive than the supposed encroachment.
It also laid down the steps the state authorities to follow before removing encroachments for road widening projects and said the copy of the order to be circulated to all states/Union Territories.
The top court said that while carrying out road widening, the state must ascertain the existing width of the road, issue formal notices if any encroachments are found, and give residents the opportunity to raise objections.
It further said that any decision against an objection must come in the form of a reasoned order with sufficient time allowed for residents to vacate.