A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4590 of 2025 (decided 1 Apr. 2025) examines the legality of summary demolition of residential structures by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (“1973 Act”).

The Court held the PDA’s action arbitrary and violative of the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, because the statutory and procedural safeguards required before demolition were not observed. The judgment reads Section 43(1)(d)(ii) of the Act purposively: “if such person cannot be found” means after genuine, multiple, on-ground attempts to effect personal service over more than one day; only thereafter may authorities resort to affixation and registered post and ordinarily both methods should be employed given the drastic consequences of demolition under Section 27.

The Court relied on its earlier In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures and directed strict compliance with those directions, set aside the High Court order, quantified costs (₹10,00,000 per appeal) against the PDA, and left open remedies for the appellants including compensation claims. This decision reinforces procedural due process, natural justice and the requirement of reasonable notice before deprivation of shelter.

Keywords: Section 27; Section 43; show-cause notice; service by affixing; service by registered post; personal service; right to shelter; Article 21; bulldozer justice; Prayagraj Development Authority.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

These consolidated appeals arise from the PDA’s demolition of appellants’ residential structures allegedly under Section 27 of the 1973 Act. The PDA’s administrative record shows a show-cause notice dated 18 December 2020 said to be pasted on the property and an order dated 8 January 2021 directing demolition which, according to the PDA, was also affixed. A subsequent communication dated 1 March 2021 was sent by registered post and received on 6 March 2021. The demolitions were executed on 7 March 2021, within 24 hours of receipt of the communication. The appellants challenged the action before the High Court; the High Court’s order dated 8 March 2021 was impugned before this Court.

The Supreme Court confronted two linked questions:

(1) whether the service process followed by the PDA satisfied the statutory requirement and the proviso to Section 27(1) that the owner be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause;

(2) whether the demolition breached Article 21 by depriving the appellants of shelter without due process.

The Court also considered the import of Section 43 (modes of service) and the principles laid down in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures which prescribes procedural safeguards including registered post A.D., affixation and a minimum 15-day period from receipt of notice before demolition. The PDA’s practice of affixing alone, then acting swiftly after postal service, prompted close scrutiny of the meaning of “if such person cannot be found” in Section 43(1)(d)(ii) and of fair opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2).

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The material facts are straightforward and largely uncontested. The PDA alleges issuance of a show-cause notice dated 18.12.2020 which was affixed on the outer portion of the building the same day with an annotation that service was attempted but could not be effected. An order of demolition dated 08.01.2021 was passed and, according to PDA returns, affixed in the same manner. No personal service or registered post for the notice/order was carried out at that time. On 01.03.2021 the PDA issued a communication of the demolition order which it both affixed and sent by registered post; the registered post was served on 06.03.2021. The PDA executed demolition on 07.03.2021 a Sunday and within 24 hours of postal service.

The appellants thus did not get: 

(a) effective personal service after multiple efforts;

(b) the combined safeguards of affixation and registered post contemporaneously;

(c) the 15 days envisaged in the Court’s directions before demolition. Appellants averred that they were deprived of opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2) and to obtain a stay.

The PDA relied on the affixation endorsements and the later registered post to justify its action.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether service by single-day affixation alone complies with the proviso to Section 27(1) and Section 43(1)(d).
ii. Whether the words “if such person cannot be found” in Section 43(1)(d)(ii) permit affixation after a single failed visit, or require repeated genuine efforts to effect personal service.
iii. Whether demolition within 24 hours of postal communication violates the requirement of reasonable notice and the appellants’ right under Article 21.
iv. Whether the PDA’s conduct amounts to arbitrary deprivation of shelter and breaches principles of natural justice.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellants contended that the PDA did not make genuine multiple attempts at personal service and instead merely affixed notices on one day; hence the condition precedent to affixing under Section 43(1)(d) was not satisfied.
ii. They argued that the demolition order was not served such as to permit the 15-day opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2) and the Court’s prior directions; demolition within 24 hours of postal service denied effective remedy.
iii. They urged that the demolition violated Article 21 (right to shelter) since procedural safeguards and natural justice were disregarded.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The PDA relied on its endorsement of affixation entries on the notice and demolition order, asserting sufficiency of service under Section 43.
ii. The PDA contended that subsequent communication sent by registered post and affixation satisfied the statute and enabled demolition.
iii. The State supported the PDA’s administrative choices and urged deference to statutory authority in planning enforcement.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court found the PDA’s demolition unlawful and arbitrary. The Court emphasized that Section 27’s proviso requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause and Section 43 prescribes modes of service; when read purposively, “if such person cannot be found” in Section 43(1)(d)(ii) requires genuine repeated efforts to find the person on more than one day. A single-day affixation after an isolated attempt could not be treated as satisfying the condition precedent. Given the grave consequence of demolition of a home, recourse ordinarily should be to both affixation and registered post, and after effective service a minimum of 15 days should be allowed for remedy (in line with this Court’s earlier In Re: Directions).

The Court noted that in this case:

(a) the show-cause notice of 18.12.2020 was only affixed and not personally served or sent by registered post;

(b) the demolition order of 08.01.2021 likewise was only affixed;

(c) the only registered post communication came on 01.03.2021 and was received 06.03.2021;

(d) the structures were demolished on 07.03.2021 within 24 hours and without permitting appeal.

These facts demonstrated non-compliance with statutory safeguards and judicial directions, and denial of natural justice and Article 21 protection. The Court set aside the High Court order, imposed costs of ₹10,00,000 on the PDA in each appeal (payable within six weeks, with interest if delayed), directed PDA to follow In Re: Directions scrupulously and to furnish copies of relevant orders to appellants, and left open civil remedies including claims for compensation.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The core legal principle is that administrative deprivation of shelter under Section 27 must be preceded by effective service and a real opportunity to be heard. Section 43(1)(d)(ii) must be read so that affixation is a fall-back only after genuine, repeated, on-site attempts to effect personal service over more than one day; simultaneously authorities should, as a rule, send notice by registered post. Given the drastic impact of demolition, giving at least 15 days from effective receipt of the demolition order to exercise the statutory appeal is essential to meet natural justice and Article 21 requirements. The PDA’s failure to follow this prescription made the demolition arbitrary and constitutionally infirm.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court strongly condemned “bulldozer justice” and observed that statutory authorities must not treat summary demolition as routine administrative expedient. The Court reiterated that rule of law and procedural propriety are part of the Constitution’s basic structure and that development authorities must exercise enforcement powers with sensitivity to human consequences. The Court also indicated that where appellants can reconstruct subject to undertakings, relief may be fashioned — but here appellants could not reconstruct and thus pecuniary costs were imposed on PDA as punitive-compensatory measure.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Affixation is secondary: Authorities must make repeated genuine attempts at personal service across days before declaring that a person “cannot be found” under Section 43(1)(d)(ii).
ii. Dual modes preferred: Given demolition’s seriousness, affixation should, as a rule, be accompanied by service through registered post A.D. so receipt can be tracked.
iii. Minimum notice period: After effective service of demolition order, at least 15 days should be allowed to exercise appeal rights under Section 27(2) (consistent with this Court’s prior directions).
iv. District administration intimation: As in In Re: Directions, intimation to Collector/DM and use of digital portals for transparency are to be followed to prevent backdating and to secure accountability.
v. Compensation and remedies: Where unlawful demolition occurs, authorities may be made to pay costs and occupants may pursue compensation and possessory or title remedies in appropriate forums.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment consolidates and clarifies procedural protections against summary administrative demolitions. It reads Section 43 purposively to ensure service modes are not used to shortcut personal notice obligations. The Court’s insistence on repeated genuine attempts at personal service before affixation, preference for combined affixation and registered post, and the insistence on a 15-day period to exercise appeal are pragmatic safeguards reconciling developmental regulation with constitutional rights. Practitioners should note the Court’s willingness to quantify costs against errant authorities and to leave open civil remedies including compensation. Administrations must internalize the decision’s message: enforcement efficiency cannot override due process and human dignity guaranteed by Article 21. The judgment will be a reference point in urban enforcement litigation across jurisdictions governed by similar enactments.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 4590–4594 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, (1 Apr. 2025).
ii. In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3291.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, ss. 27, 43.
ii. Constitution of India, Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty).