Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has stated that bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. Allowing such practices would render the constitutional right to property, as guaranteed under Article 300A, effectively meaningless, court said.

In its November 6 judgment in a suo motu matter on a complaint by senior journalist Manoj Tibrewal Akash, a bench led by former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 25 lakh to him for demolition of his house in "high-handed" manner and "without the authority of law". 

The court said that justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence and it is simply unacceptable under the rule of law as there is a grave danger that if high-handed and unlawful behavior is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. 

The bench also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said that citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. 

The petitioner alleged that the demolition was a reprisal for a newspaper report which contained allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the construction of the road in question. 

The bench said, "The state must follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures".

In the case, the court noted that the state government authorities failed to show any document to establish the original width of the State Highway which was notified as NH 730, a National Highway.

It also pointed out that no material had been produced by the State of Uttar Pradesh to indicate whether any enquiry or demarcation was carried to earmark the encroachments in case of the petitioner's house located in Maharajganj district.

The court also said there was no material to indicate that the land had been acquired before the work of demolition was carried out beyond a statement on affidavit that there was ‘encroachment’.

The bench underscored, "The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The law does not undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public property and encroachments. There are municipal laws and town-planning legislation which contain adequate provisions for dealing with illegal encroachments".

The court said that where such legislation exists, the safeguards which are provided in it must be observed. 

"Officials of the state who carry out or sanction such unlawful action must be proceeded against for disciplinary action. Their infractions of law must invite criminal sanctions. Public accountability for public officials must be the norm. Any action in respect of public or private property must be backed by due process of law," the bench said.

The court also laid down certain minimum thresholds of procedural safeguards that must be fulfilled before taking action against properties of citizens. 

In the case, the bench said the demolition was preceded only by a Munadi; there was no written notice; and no disclosure of the basis of demarcation or the extent of the demolition to the occupiers. Even in respect of the area allegedly encroached no due process was followed and a written notice was not issued, it pointed out.

Among its directions, the bench directed the Chief Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh government to have an enquiry conducted into the entire matter pertaining to the illegal demolition, against all officers concerned responsible for it. The court also directed the Chief Secretary to lodge a First Information Report as directed by the NHRC, which should be investigated by the CB-CID.

In pursuance of a road widening project, the bench directed the State or its instrumentalities must :

(i) Ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of official records/maps;

(ii) Carry out a survey/demarcation to ascertain whether there is any encroachment on the existing road with reference to the existing records/maps;

(iii) If an encroachment is found, issue a proper, written notice to the encroachers to remove the encroachment;

(iv) In the event that the noticee raises an objection with regard to the correctness or the validity of the notice, decide the objection by a speaking order in due compliance with the principles of natural justice;

(v) If the objection is rejected, furnish reasonable notice to the person against whom adverse action is proposed and upon the failure of the person concerned to act, proceed in accordance with law, to remove the encroachment unless restrained by an order of the competent authority or court; and

(vi) If the existing width of road including the State land adjoining the road is not sufficient to accommodate the widening of the road, steps must be taken by the State to acquire the land in accordance with law before undertaking the road widening exercise.

Case Title: In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash