The Patna High Court on September 10 directed payment of ₹5.5 lakh as interim compensation to three petitioners whose house and boundary walls were demolished in East Champaran in 2017, observing that demolition of a house is "akin to Brahma Hatya".

Justice Raj Kumar held that the demolition occurred without any authoritative decision and in the midst of pending encroachment proceedings. The Court found that the demolition was carried out using a JCB in the presence of police and authorities, who remained "mute spectators".

The Court further held that the demolition violated Article 21 of the Constitution and that the constitutional mandate under Article 300-A, which protects property from deprivation except by authority of law, had not been adhered to.

House demolished during pending encroachment proceedings

The petitioners claimed title and possession over the disputed land in East Champaran through registered sale deeds executed in February 2015.

After a dispute arose regarding possession, proceedings under Section 144 CrPC were initiated and subsequently dropped. An encroachment proceeding was later initiated against the petitioners.

The petitioners alleged that on April 11, 2017, officials reached the spot along with a JCB following a gathering of persons and that their structures were demolished without any lawful order, opportunity of hearing or compliance with the prescribed procedure.

The State, however, submitted that no order of demolition had been passed by the competent authority and that the State authorities had no role in the actual demolition. It contended that the structures had been demolished by a mob/"unsocial elements".

'No order relating to removal or demolition...found in any record'

The High Court noted that the State's own supplementary counter-affidavit stated that a committee had found two old rooms and a damaged boundary wall at the site.

The affidavit attributed the damage to an aggressive crowd and, significantly, stated: "No order relating to removal or demolition of any type of construction has been found in any record."

The Court found that the demolition had nevertheless taken place in the presence of the authorities and while the encroachment proceeding was pending.

It observed: "The catastrophe took place on 11.04.17 in the presence of the police and the authorities, as the demolition was carried out by the use of a JCB machine while the authorities remained mute spectators."

The Court was also critical of the authorities for not taking steps to lodge an FIR against those responsible for the demolition and for subsequently proceeding with cancellation of the petitioners' jamabandi. It described the authorities' approach as showing a "very callous attitude".

'Right to shelter is a fundamental right'

The High Court reiterated that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21, while Article 300-A protects the property of individuals from deprivation except by authority of law.

Referring to Supreme Court decisions including Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, the Court emphasised that authorities cannot proceed with demolition without following due process, including valid notice and hearing.

The Court made a broader observation about the significance of a house: "A house is not merely a building comprising four walls and a structure, but also represents an emotional connection for the family residing therein."

It added that demolition of a house "strikes at the root of a person's identity and brings trauma to the family, which is irreparable."

"As the soul lives in the body, the body lives in the house; for what the soul is to the body, the body is to the house. The house has the same divine spirit. It does not discriminate between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the ordinary. It provides solace to the person living therein, just as a tree provides solace to a bystander who stands underneath it to protect oneself from the direct sun, heat, or rain. Its demolition strikes at the root of a person's identity and brings trauma to the family, which is irreparable" it remarked.

The Court added that, even according to the Vedas, Grihastha is a Shreshtha Ashram, which comprises the Garbhagriha (womb room), Agni Shala (kitchen), Bhandar (storage), Sadas (sitting hall), and Devagriha (puja room).

"Thus, Griha is protected and nurtured by the occupants through the performance of Brahma Yajna – teaching and reading, Deva Yajna – prayer, Pitri Yajna – caring for parents, Bhuta Yajna – feeding animals, and Manushya Yajna – feeding guests," it noted.

The Court then observed: "Once the house in which a person is living is demolished, it is akin to Brahma Hatya."

It added that while monetary compensation could enable reconstruction, it could not compensate a family for the misfortune and suffering caused by such demolition.

Mob demolition did not absolve authorities

The Court rejected the suggestion that the authorities could escape responsibility merely because the demolition was attributed to a mob.

It held that demolition of the petitioners' house “without any authoritative decision and in the midst of an encroachment proceeding, by a mob” could not absolve the respondent authorities of their responsibility.

The Court observed that it was their “onerous duty” to protect the house in terms of Article 300-A.

It further held: "What the Constitution grants to a citizen cannot be taken away illegally and arbitrarily by the respondent authorities."

The Court consequently concluded that Article 21 had been violated and that the constitutional mandate under Article 300-A had not been adhered to.

₹5.5 lakh interim compensation ordered

Finding a case for compensation, the High Court directed the Commissioner, East Champaran District, to pay ₹1.5 lakh to Petitioner No. 1 and ₹2 lakh each to Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3.

The total interim compensation therefore comes to ₹5.5 lakh, payable within two months from the date of the judgment.

The Commissioner was further directed to conduct a detailed inquiry and assess the final compensation based on the “mishap, loss and suffering” suffered by the petitioners.

The Court directed that the final assessment be completed within three months from payment of the interim compensation.

It also refrained from directing the District Magistrate to adjudicate the compensation claim, invoking the principle "nemo judex in causa sua" (no one can be a judge in their own cause) as the District Magistrate was already dealing with the encroachment and jamabandi proceedings and had filed a counter-affidavit in the case.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Case Title: Vishnu Shankar Singh and Ors v The State Of Bihar and Ors

Tags: