LinkedIn
INSIGHTS by Karma AI provides content on its platform for informational purposes only. Read Now
Register for Early Access
Register for Early Access www.karma.law
Visit Karma AI Website Visit Karma AI Website
What are You Looking For?
Popular Searches
SHYAM NANDAN MEHTA Versus SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.
ZULFIQUAR HAIDER & ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

ZULFIQUAR HAIDER & ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

byKarma AI
0
6-ZULFIQUAR HAIDER & ANRDownload

1. Case Number:
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4590 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.6466 of 2021)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4591 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.6624 of 2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4592 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.6818 of 2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4593 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.6785 of 2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4594 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.2376 of 2022)

2. Case Title: ZULFIQUAR HAIDER & ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

3. Headnote:
The Supreme Court, expressing shock at the high-handed and illegal demolition of residential structures, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and directed the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) to pay costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- in each appeal to the appellants for the inhuman and illegal demolition.

The Court emphasized that demolition actions under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, must strictly adhere to due process, including proper and effective service of show-cause notices and demolition orders. It clarified that “if such person cannot be found” for personal service requires multiple genuine efforts over more than one day, not just unavailability at a given time. Given the drastic consequences, both affixing and registered post modes should usually be used for service.

The Court reiterated that the right to shelter (under Article 21 of the Constitution) can only be taken away by following due process and principles of natural justice. The appellants were also granted leave to file proceedings to establish their rights over the land and claim further compensation for the illegal demolition.

4. Background and Facts:
The cases involve the demolition of residential premises/buildings belonging to the appellants by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA), purportedly under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Supreme Court noted that the demolitions were carried out in a high-handed and illegal manner, shocking its conscience.

Specifically, a show-cause notice (as per Section 27(1) proviso) was issued by the PDA on 18th December 2020. This notice was allegedly affixed on the structures the same day, with a remark that personal service was attempted but could not be effected. Subsequently, a demolition order was passed by the Zonal Officer of the PDA on 8th January 2021. An identical endorsement of alleged affixation was made on this order.

Thereafter, on 1st March 2021, another communication of the demolition order was issued by the Zonal Officer. This communication was purportedly affixed on the same day but was also sent by Registered Post, serving the appellants on 6th March 2021 and 7th March 2021. Within twenty-four hours of this service, the residential structures were demolished using bulldozers. The High Court had passed an order dated 8th March 2021, which was the subject of challenge before the Supreme Court.

5. Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

6. Type: Judgment

7. SCR Citation: not mentioned

8. Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 480

9. Judgment Authored by: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka*

10. Date of Judgment: April 01, 2025

11. Case Start Date: 2021 (Year of filing of SLP(C) No.6466 of 2021, the lead case. Leave was granted on April 01, 2025, as mentioned in Para 1 of the judgment).

12. Case Arising From:
The appeals challenged the impugned order dated 8th March 2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The nature of the High Court’s order is not explicitly detailed, but it appears to have either upheld the demolition action or dismissed challenges against it, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

13. Parties Involved:

  • Appellant(s): ZULFIQUAR HAIDER & ANR.
  • Respondent(s): STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. (ORS. includes Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) as the second respondent).

14. Disposal Nature: Appeals allowed. Impugned order set aside. PDA directed to pay costs.

15. Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil))

16. Law Type: Constitutional Law (Right to Shelter, Due Process, Natural Justice), Urban Planning Law, Administrative Law.

17. Judges (Assent/Dissent):

  • Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka (Authored the judgment, Assented)
  • Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (Assented)
    No dissenting opinions were recorded.

18. Procedural History:

  • Administrative Actions:
    • PDA issued show-cause notice on 18.12.2020.
    • PDA Zonal Officer issued demolition order on 08.01.2021.
    • Another communication of demolition order issued on 01.03.2021.
    • Demolition carried out on 06.03.2021 and 07.03.2021.
  • Lower Court Decisions:
    • High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed an impugned order dated 8th March 2021. (Specific nature of the order is not detailed, but it is implied to have been adverse to the appellants, leading to the appeal).
  • Appeals:
    • Special Leave Petitions (Civil) (e.g., No.6466 of 2021) filed before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. Leave granted and converted to Civil Appeals.
    • The Supreme Court allowed these appeals.

19. Issues Framed:
The central issues considered by the Supreme Court were:

  • Whether the demolition of the appellants’ residential structures by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) was carried out in accordance with due process of law, particularly regarding the service of show-cause notices and demolition orders under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
  • Whether the actions of the PDA violated the appellants’ fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice.
  • What is the proper interpretation and application of service of notice provisions, especially Section 43 of the 1973 Act, in the context of demolition proceedings?
  • What relief should be granted to the appellants for the illegal demolition of their structures?

20. Cases Cited:

  • Cited by Court:
    • In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291 (Para 5, Page 5; Para 14, Page 14)
      • Relevance: This case laid down subsequent directions regarding the service of notice and procedures for demolition of structures. The Court cited Paragraph 91A of this judgment which outlines specific requirements for show-cause notices and their service.
      • Judicial Consideration: The Supreme Court in the present case directed the PDA to scrupulously follow the directions laid down in this precedent.
      • Exact Quote: “91. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law. A. NOTICE i.

        No demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days’ time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later. ii. The notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier by a registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shall also be affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure in question. iii. The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall start from the date of receipt of the said notice.” (Para 5, Page 5)

21. Acts/Rules/Orders Referred:

  • Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (the 1973 Act):
    • Section 27 (Order of demolition of building): Quoted verbatim in the judgment. (Para 2, Page 2-3)
      • Context: This is the primary statutory provision under which the PDA purportedly took demolition action. The Court analyzed its requirements, particularly the proviso regarding “reasonable opportunity to show cause.”
    • Section 27(1) Proviso: Requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause before a demolition order is made. (Para 2, Page 3; Para 4, Page 4; Para 11, Page 11)
      • Context: The Court found that the PDA failed to provide a reasonable opportunity due to improper service.
    • Section 27(2): Provides for an appeal against a demolition order within thirty days. (Para 2, Page 3; Para 11, Page 12; Para 13, Page 13)
      • Context: The Court noted that the appellants were deprived of this remedy due to the rapid demolition after delayed and improper service.
    • Section 43 (Services of notices, etc.): Quoted verbatim in the judgment. (Para 7, Page 7-9)
      • Context: This section details the modes of service for notices and documents under the Act. The Court interpreted Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) concerning personal service and affixation.
    • Section 26: Mentioned in Section 27(1) as a related provision. (Para 2, Page 2)
      • Context: Not directly analyzed, but part of the statutory framework for development control.
    • Section 14: Mentioned in Section 27(1) regarding permission/approval/sanction. (Para 2, Page 2)
      • Context: Not directly analyzed, but part of the statutory framework for development control.
  • Constitution of India:
    • Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty): Mentioned as guaranteeing the right to shelter. (Para 11, Page 11; Para 13, Page 13)
      • Context: The Court held that the demolition action violated the appellants’ right to shelter without due process.

22. Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case:

  • Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
  • Constitution of India (Article 21)

23. Literature Citation: []

24. Appearances:

  • Advocates:
    • For Appellant(s): Learned senior counsel (Name not specified in OCR).
    • For First Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh): Learned Attorney General for India (Name not specified in OCR).
    • For Second Respondent (Prayagraj Development Authority – PDA): Learned senior counsel (Name not specified in OCR).
  • Witnesses: NA
  • Other Persons: NA

25. Legal Jargons and Maxims:

  • Show-cause notice: A legal notice that requires the person to whom it is addressed to explain or “show cause” why a certain action should not be taken against them. (Para 4, Page 4)
  • Affixing: The act of attaching or pasting a notice or document conspicuously to a property or structure. (Para 4, Page 4)
  • Registered Post A.D.: Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, a postal service that provides proof of delivery. (Para 5, Page 5)
  • Arrears of land revenue: Unpaid land taxes or dues, which can be recovered through specific legal procedures. (Para 2, Page 3)
  • Abuse of process of law: The improper use of a legal procedure for an ulterior purpose or to harass. (Implied in the Court’s condemnation of “bulldozer justice”)
  • Miscarriage of justice: A failure of justice; a result that is contrary to the principles of justice. (Implied in the Court’s condemnation of “bulldozer justice”)
  • Rule of law: The principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced. (Para 13, Page 13)
  • Natural justice: Fundamental principles of fairness, including the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua). (Para 11, Page 11)
  • Bulldozer justice: A colloquial term used to describe demolitions carried out summarily without strict adherence to legal procedures and due process. (Para 13, Page 13)

26. Exhibits:

  • Counter affidavit of the third respondent, containing a copy of the notice dated 18th December 2020. (Para 11, Page 11; Para 14, Page 14)
    • Description: This document records that the notice was pasted on that day.
    • Page Number: Page 168 of the counter affidavit.

27. Prayer:
The appellants’ implied prayer before the Supreme Court was to set aside the High Court’s order dated 8th March 2021, to halt or reverse the demolition action, and to seek appropriate remedies for the alleged illegal demolition. (Inferred from Para 2, Page 1 and the final relief granted).

28. Evidence & Findings:

  • Evidence Type: Counter Affidavit of PDA (Third Respondent)
    • Description: Filed by the PDA.
    • Findings:
      • Show-cause notice issued on 18.12.2020, allegedly affixed on the structure the same day, with a remark of attempted but failed personal service. (Para 4, Page 4)
      • Demolition order dated 08.01.2021 also had an identical endorsement of alleged affixation. (Para 4, Page 4)
      • Subsequent communication of demolition order dated 01.03.2021 sent by Registered Post, served on 06.03.2021 and 07.03.2021. (Para 4, Page 4)
  • Court’s Findings on Service of Notice:
    • Multiple efforts were not made to personally serve the show-cause notice. (Para 11, Page 11)
    • The option of sending the show-cause notice by registered post was available but not exercised. (Para 12, Page 12)
    • The demolition order dated 08.01.2021 was not served personally or by registered post; it was allegedly served only by affixing. (Para 12, Page 12)
    • The subsequent communication dated 01.03.2021 was served on 06.03.2021 (Saturday). Demolition took place within 24 hours on a Sunday. (Para 12, Page 12)
    • This rapid action deprived appellants of their opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act. (Para 12, Page 12)
    • The interpretation of “if such person cannot be found” in Section 43(1)(d)(ii) means genuine multiple efforts over more than one day are required for personal service before resorting to affixation or registered post. (Para 10, Page 10)
    • Considering drastic consequences of Section 27, recourse should usually be taken to both affixing and registered post modes for service. (Para 10, Page 10)
  • Court’s General Findings:
    • The residential premises/buildings of the appellants were high-handedly and illegally demolished. (Para 2, Page 2)
    • The demolition action is completely illegal and arbitrary, violating the appellants’ right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 13, Page 13)
    • The action is a case of “bulldozer justice” showing insensitivity by the PDA. (Para 13, Page 13)
    • The State Government supported the PDA, which is unfortunate. (Para 13, Page 13)
    • Appellants are not in a position to reconstruct the structures. (Para 13, Page 13)
    • The inhuman and illegal demolition warrants saddling the planning authority with costs. (Para 13, Page 13)

29. Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments:
(Inferred from the nature of their appeals and the Court’s findings)

  • The demolition of their residential structures was carried out illegally and in a high-handed manner by the PDA.
  • The procedural requirements for demolition, especially regarding the proper service of show-cause notices and demolition orders as mandated by Section 27 and Section 43 of the 1973 Act, were not followed.
  • They were not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the demolition, nor were they afforded sufficient time to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act.
  • The action violated their fundamental right to shelter guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice.
  • The High Court’s order supporting or not rectifying this illegal action was erroneous and should be set aside.
  • They are not in a position to reconstruct the structures and should be compensated for the illegal demolition.

30. Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments:
(Inferred from the PDA’s counter affidavit and the State’s support)

  • The demolition action was taken under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
  • Show-cause notices and demolition orders were issued and served, albeit by affixation, as per the rules. (Implied from the counter affidavit details in Para 4, Page 4)
  • The State Government supported the actions of the PDA. (Para 13, Page 13)
  • The demolition was justified as the structures were unauthorized (implied from the purpose of Section 27).

31. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court’s ratio decidendi is based on the strict interpretation and enforcement of procedural safeguards in demolition actions, particularly concerning the service of notices:

  • Strict Compliance with Service Requirements: Demolition of structures, especially residential ones, which implicates the right to shelter under Article 21, must strictly comply with the due process of law and principles of natural justice. This includes proper and effective service of show-cause notices and demolition orders. (Para 11, Page 11)
  • Interpretation of “Cannot Be Found”: The phrase “if such person cannot be found” in Section 43(1)(d)(ii) of the 1973 Act (for personal service) implies that genuine multiple efforts must be made to find the person on more than one day. Only after such repeated efforts fail can alternative modes of service like affixation or registered post be resorted to. (Para 10, Page 10)
  • Dual Mode of Service for Drastic Actions: Given the drastic consequences of a demolition order under Section 27, authorities should typically resort to both affixation and sending by registered post to ensure proper service of the show-cause notice. (Para 10, Page 10)
  • Adequate Time for Remedy: After proper and effective service of a demolition order, at least 15 days’ time must be provided to the owner/occupier to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act. Rapid demolition immediately after service, especially on a weekend, deprives the affected party of this right. (Para 11-12, Page 11-12)
  • Illegal Demolition Warrants Costs: Demolition actions carried out in a high-handed and illegal manner, without following due process, are arbitrary and constitute “bulldozer justice,” warranting the imposition of significant costs on the responsible planning authority. (Para 13, Page 13)

32. Final Decision:
The impugned order dated 8th March 2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is set aside. The appeals are allowed with the following specific directions:

  1. The Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) is directed to scrupulously follow the directions laid down in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291).
  2. The PDA is directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) in each appeal to the appellants within a period of six weeks from today. Failure to pay within the stipulated time will result in interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the Special Leave Petitions until payment.
  3. Even assuming a copy of the order referred to in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent was served, the third respondent is directed to provide a copy thereof to the appellants.
  4. The appellants are left open to file appropriate proceedings to establish their rights in respect of the land subject matter of these appeals.
  5. The appellants are also entitled to file proceedings to claim compensation on account of illegal demolition. (Para 14, Page 14-15)

33. Timeline:

  • December 18, 2020: PDA issued a show-cause notice. (Para 4, Page 4)
  • January 08, 2021: Zonal Officer of PDA passed an order directing demolition. (Para 4, Page 4)
  • March 01, 2021: Another communication of the demolition order was issued by the Zonal Officer of PDA. (Para 4, Page 4)
  • March 06, 2021 & March 07, 2021: The communication dated March 1, 2021, was served upon the appellants by Registered Post. Demolition of residential structures was carried out. (Para 4, Page 4; Para 12, Page 12)
  • March 08, 2021: Date of the impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. (Para 14, Page 14)
  • 2021: S.L.P.(Civil) No.6466 of 2021 (and other connected SLPs) filed in the Supreme Court. (Page 1)
  • 2022: S.L.P.(Civil) No.2376 of 2022 filed in the Supreme Court. (Page 1)
  • April 01, 2025: Date of the Supreme Court Judgment. (Page 15)
Add a comment Add a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *