Illegal Demolition Without Due Process Violates Article 300A: Allahabad High Court Orders Restoration of Land, Rs 20 Lakh Costs

The Allahabad High Court recenty set aside a suo motu revenue order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Raebareli and held the demolition of a citizen’s property to be illegal, arbitrary and in violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards, imposing costs of Rs 20 lakh on the State.

The case arose from proceedings initiated under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, through which the SDM had deleted the name of petitioner Savitri Sonkar from the revenue records and declared her land as Gaon Sabha land. The order, passed on February 10, 2025, was made without issuing any notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, despite her name being duly recorded as a tenure-holder.

The petitioner had purchased the land in question in February 2021 through a registered sale deed from the legal heir of Santdeen, in whose favour a declaration under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had been passed in 1975. That decree had never been challenged and had attained finality, following which successive mutations were carried out in the revenue records.

Relying on a report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, the SDM initiated suo motu correction proceedings, alleging that there was no valid order supporting the original entry in favour of Santdeen and branding the entry as forged. Acting on this report alone, the SDM ordered deletion of the petitioner’s name and directed the land to be recorded as Gaon Sabha property.

Within weeks of the order, a revenue team was constituted and the petitioner’s structure standing on the land was demolished on March 24, 2025. The land was subsequently handed over for construction of a building for the GST Department.

Allowing the writ petition, the high court found that the entire exercise was carried out behind the petitioner’s back and amounted to a “high-handed” abuse of statutory power. The court held that Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code permits correction of clerical or factual errors in revenue records and expressly bars adjudication of disputes involving title.

The bench noted that the existence of a declaratory decree under Section 229B was known to the authorities, yet it was deliberately ignored while passing the impugned order. The court held that revenue authorities could not nullify or bypass a final judicial decree by invoking correction powers.

Court further observed that even assuming the land vested in the Gaon Sabha, eviction or demolition could only be carried out by strictly following the procedure prescribed under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, which mandates issuance of notice, opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order. No such procedure was followed in the present case.

Relying on recent Supreme Court directions on demolitions, court held that the demolition carried out without notice, without waiting for the statutory period of appeal, and without following due process violated the rule of law and the petitioner’s constitutional right to property under Article 300A.

Setting aside the February 10 revenue order, the high court directed the State to pay Rs 20 lakh as costs to the petitioner within two months and ordered restoration of possession of the vacant land within two weeks. Court also directed the State to conduct a departmental inquiry and recover the costs from the responsible officials, including the highest officer involved in the exercise.

An inquiry by an officer not below the rank of Additional Chief Secretary has also been ordered to examine the conduct of all officials who passed or implemented the impugned orders.

Case Title: Savitri Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and others

Judgment Date: December 18, 2025

Bench: Justice Alok Mathur