The Supreme Court directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay substantial compensation for the unlawful demolition of six houses. The court criticized the authority’s failure to properly serve demolition notices and stressed that the right to shelter is an integral part of the Constitution, holding the PDA accountable for its “illegal” actions.
BY PC Bureau
New Delhi, April 1, 2025:
In a significant ruling that underscores the fundamental right to shelter and the importance of due process, the Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) for the illegal demolition of six residential houses. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the PDA to pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh to each of the affected individuals, unequivocally labeling the authority’s actions as “inhumane and illegal.”
The apex court’s strong condemnation stemmed from its finding that the demolitions were carried out in blatant violation of due process and the right to shelter, a crucial aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
“The authorities and especially the development authority must remember that the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India…Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants,” the bench stated in its order.
Expressing deep concern over the matter, the court recorded, “These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished in the matter which we have discussed in detail.” Justice Oka, during the hearing, further emphasized, “This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process.”
ALSO READ: Hold NRC First Then Delimitation in Manipur: Meitei Alliance
A key point of contention was the manner in which the PDA served demolition notices. The court explicitly disapproved of the practice of merely affixing notices, stating that it was insufficient and had resulted in the residents losing their homes without a fair opportunity to respond. “This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” Justice Oka remarked, highlighting the inadequacy of this method compared to personal service or registered post.
The court’s scrutiny of the case revealed that the show-cause notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which governs the demolition of unauthorized structures, was issued and affixed on December 18, 2020, on the same day. The PDA had noted that two attempts were made for personal service, a claim seemingly contradicted by the immediate act of affixture.
Section 27(1) of the Act mandates that a development authority may order the demolition of a building constructed in violation of the Master Plan or without proper approvals, but only after providing the owner with a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The proviso to this section further stipulates that no demolition order can be issued without first serving notice on the affected persons.
ALSO READ:Â Court Orders Probe Against Kapil Mishra Over 2020 Riots Charges
Adding to the procedural lapses, a subsequent demolition order dated January 8, 2021, was also merely affixed and not sent via registered post. The first registered post communication was dispatched on March 1, 2021, received on March 6, 2021, and the demolition was carried out the very next day. This swift action effectively deprived the appellants of their right to appeal against the demolition order under Section 27(2) of the Act.
The Supreme Court firmly stated, “The object of the proviso to Section 27(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before demolition. This is no way of granting a reasonable opportunity.”
While the court acknowledged a 2024 ruling, In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, which laid down guidelines for serving notices, it based its judgment on the interpretation of Section 43 of the UP Planning Act, the relevant provision at the time of the 2021 demolitions. Section 43 outlines the procedures for serving notices, including personal service, affixture on a conspicuous part of the property, or tendering to an adult family member, with the option of registered post.
The court clarified that Section 43(2)(b) necessitates “genuine efforts” to serve the notice in person before resorting to affixture. “When the provision talks about a person who cannot be found, it is obvious that genuine efforts are required to be made for affecting service in person. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the house and affixes it after finding that on that day the person concerned is not available. It is obvious that repeated efforts have to be made to make personal service. Only if those efforts fail then there are two options available. One is of affixing and second is of sending by registered post,” the court observed, highlighting the PDA’s failure to adhere to this crucial requirement.
“This shocks our conscience. There is something called right to shelter, something called due process” Justice Abhay Oka of #SupremeCourt on demolition of houses of a lawyer, a professor and three others in Prayagraj. pic.twitter.com/3eYhE1ZQLx
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 1, 2025
Interestingly, during a hearing on March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court had considered allowing the appellants to reconstruct their homes, contingent upon their undertaking to demolish the structures at their own expense if their appeals were ultimately dismissed. However, the counsel for the appellants informed the court that they lacked the financial resources for such reconstruction and instead sought compensation.
The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, opposed the compensation request, arguing that the affected individuals had alternate accommodations. The court, however, firmly rejected this contention as a valid reason to disregard the denial of due process.
Justice Oka emphasized that compensation was the only viable means to hold the authorities accountable for their illegal actions. “We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation of ₹10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” he asserted.
The Supreme Court explicitly clarified that its judgment pertained to the procedural illegality of the demolitions and did not comment on the appellants’ ownership rights over the land. “It is open to the appellants to file appropriate proceedings for establishing their title and interest in respect of the subject property,” the court stated.
Furthermore, the court directed the Prayagraj Planning Authority to “scrupulously follow” the guidelines laid down in the case of In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures in all future instances of serving notices and carrying out demolitions.
The case has a complex backdrop, with the petitioners previously alleging that the State had wrongly linked their properties to the deceased gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, contending that the demolitions were carried out without proper notice. The Uttar Pradesh government, on the other hand, had maintained that the structures were unauthorized due to the occupants overstaying their leases. The Allahabad High Court had earlier sided with the State, dismissing the petitioners’ challenge by accepting the argument that their lease had expired in 1996 and their freehold applications were rejected in 2015 and 2019.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling serves as a strong message to development authorities across the country, reiterating the sanctity of due process and the fundamental right to shelter, and emphasizing the severe consequences of disregarding these constitutional and legal safeguards. The ₹60 lakh compensation ordered by the apex court underscores the financial burden that authorities will bear for such “inhumane and illegal” actions.
