A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed the legality of the demolition of the appellants’ residential structures by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Court found that the action of demolition, executed within 24 hours of service of the last communication and conducted on a Sunday, constituted a gross violation of Article 21, specifically the right to shelter, and breached the doctrine of due process.

The judgment emphasised that the statutory mandate of Section 43 concerning service of notices necessitates multiple bona fide attempts at personal service, and service by affixing may only follow after demonstrating that “the person cannot be found,” which itself requires genuine repeated efforts.

The Court underscored that residential structures cannot be demolished summarily without ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice, including a reasonable opportunity to show cause and adequate time to file an appeal under Section 27(2). The demolition was labelled an instance of “bulldozer justice,” exhibiting high-handedness and disregard for constitutional protections.

The Court relied on its earlier ruling in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, which mandates proper service by registered post A.D. along with affixture and a mandatory 15-day period for response.

Finding the PDA’s action arbitrary, illegal, and inhuman, the Court set aside the High Court order dismissing the writ petition and imposed costs of Rs.10,00,000/- in each appeal. It further directed the PDA to strictly comply with the demolition guidelines from the 2024 decision and left the appellants free to pursue compensation and further proceedings regarding rights over the land.

Keywords: Section 27, Section 43, Article 21, Right to Shelter, Due Process, Bulldozer Justice, Service of Notice, Natural Justice, Demolition, PDA.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute arises from the demolition of the appellants’ residential structures by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) claiming exercise of powers under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The appellants’ homes were razed within a day of receiving a communication dated 01.03.2021, served by registered post only on 06.03.2021, with demolition occurring on 07.03.2021, a Sunday.

The PDA contended that earlier notices had been “served” through affixture, but the Supreme Court examined these claims against the statutory scheme and the constitutional guarantee of due process.

The 1973 Act provides the framework for regulated development within notified areas. Section 27(1) authorises demolition where construction is raised without sanction or in contravention of the Master Plan. However, the proviso insists on giving the owner a reasonable opportunity to show cause.

Section 27(2) creates a statutory appeal with a 30-day time frame and the power to stay demolition. Section 43 prescribes mandatory methods for service of notices and emphasises personal service unless, after repeated attempts, the person “cannot be found.”

The Court considered the binding effect of its earlier landmark judgment In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291), which codified procedural safeguards for demolition action, including mandatory service by registered post, affixture, digital intimation to the Collector, and a clear 15-day response period. While this judgment was rendered subsequently, the Court still analysed the statutory protection inherent in Section 43.

The background also includes the appellants approaching the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 where their challenge was rejected, compelling them to approach the Supreme Court. The narrative portrays systemic administrative abuse marked by the PDA’s insistence that affixing notices on the same day qualified as valid service, thereby bypassing the statutory requirement of reasonable opportunity.

The Court’s remarks that the facts “shock our conscience” reflect the severity of procedural violations. The demolition, executed with haste and disregard for statutory checks, became emblematic of the phenomenon termed “bulldozer justice,” an expression used in the judgment itself.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

A show-cause notice dated 18.12.2020 was purportedly issued under the proviso to Section 27(1) of the 1973 Act. The counter-affidavit indicated that the notice was affixed on the very same day with an endorsement claiming that an attempt at personal service had failed. However, the record revealed no repeated efforts at personal service, nor any attempt to send the notice by registered post.

Subsequently, a demolition order dated 08.01.2021 was issued by the Zonal Officer of the PDA. Strikingly, this order too carried an identical endorsement of attempted service and immediate affixture. Again, no attempt was made to serve the order by registered post, despite Section 43(1)(d)(iii) expressly providing this as an alternative mode.

Thereafter, the PDA issued another communication dated 01.03.2021 relating to the demolition order. On this occasion, although the communication was again affixed, it was also sent by registered post, reaching the appellants on 06.03.2021, a Saturday. The next morning, 07.03.2021, without allowing the lapse of even 24 hours, the PDA deployed bulldozers and demolished the residential premises.

This sequence showed that neither the show-cause notice nor the demolition order was ever delivered through personal service or registered post. The only document actually received by the appellants before demolition was the communication of 01.03.2021. Since the demolition order itself was never validly served, the appellants were deprived of their right to file an appeal under Section 27(2) and seek a stay.

The PDA justified its actions by stating that affixture constituted valid service, but the Court examined the statutory language “if such person cannot be found” and held that the phrase demanded repeated genuine attempts to locate the person, not a single token visit.

The appellants’ challenge before the Allahabad High Court failed when the High Court upheld the demolition. Aggrieved, they approached the Supreme Court, which after examining the affidavits, procedural lapses, and constitutional implications, characterised the demolition as “illegal and arbitrary” and “high-handed.”

The Court highlighted the gravity of the situation: demolition occurred on a Sunday, within just a day of the first actual service, thereby frustrating any opportunity to seek appellate remedy. This factual matrix became the foundation for declaring the entire action unconstitutional.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the service of the show-cause notice and demolition order purportedly under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 complied with the mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 43 of the Act?

ii. Whether demolition executed within 24 hours of service of the communication dated 01.03.2021 deprived the appellants of their statutory right of appeal under Section 27(2)?

iii. Whether the demolition of residential structures without proper service of notice and without providing reasonable opportunity to show cause violates Article 21 and the principles of natural justice?

iv. Whether the PDA’s action amounted to arbitrary exercise of power constituting “bulldozer justice”?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellants contended that the PDA failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 43, as no personal service of the show-cause notice or demolition order was ever attempted beyond a single superficial visit. They submitted that affixture on the very same day could not be treated as compliance with the phrase “if such person cannot be found,” which required genuine attempts over multiple days.

The appellants emphasised that the only document served upon them by registered post was the communication dated 01.03.2021, received on 06.03.2021, leaving virtually no time for exercise of their appellate right.

They further argued that the action violated the proviso to Section 27(1), which mandates giving a “reasonable opportunity” to show cause. The arbitrarily quick demolition, carried out on a Sunday, demonstrated deliberate intent to deprive them of natural justice.

They relied upon constitutional jurisprudence that protects the right to shelter under Article 21, citing that any deprivation must be in accordance with law and cannot be premised on a colourable exercise of power.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State of Uttar Pradesh and the PDA argued that the demolition was carried out strictly under statutory powers conferred by Section 27. They contended that service through affixture was valid and permissible under Section 43(1)(d)(ii), and that the appellants had been afforded adequate opportunity.

The PDA maintained that the structures were unauthorized and that demolition was justified in public interest. It was submitted that the communication sent through registered post on 01.03.2021 reaffirmed the demolition order already affixed in January 2021, and hence the appellants had constructive notice.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 27, Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 – Order of demolition; proviso requiring reasonable opportunity; appeal under Section 27(2).

ii. Section 43, Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 – Modes of service; interpretation of “if such person cannot be found.”

iii. Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to life and shelter; requirement of due process.

iv. Principles of Natural Justice – Notice and opportunity to be heard prior to adverse action.

v. In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291) – Guidelines for service, notice, timelines.

I) JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court held the demolition action to be “completely illegal” and violative of constitutional and statutory protections. The Court analysed Section 43(1)(d) and emphasised that affixture could be used only if the person “cannot be found,” which necessitates repeated and genuine attempts. The PDA’s conduct of affixing both the show-cause notice and the demolition order on the same day of the alleged failed attempt constituted non-compliance.

The Court elaborated that the drastic consequences of demolition require authorities to adopt both modes—affixture and registered post—and to ensure proper service as a matter of duty. The Court stated that “residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished in such a summary manner,” reinforcing that rule of law forms part of the basic structure. The right to shelter was recognised as an extension of Article 21, and thus any deprivation required lawful procedure.

Considering that the appellants actually received only the communication dated 01.03.2021, and demolition followed within 24 hours, the Court held that they were deprived of their statutory right of appeal under Section 27(2). The demolition was termed another instance of “bulldozer justice.”

The Court set aside the High Court’s order and imposed costs of Rs.10,00,000/- on the PDA for each appeal, directing payment within six weeks with interest liability upon default. The PDA was further directed to strictly follow the demolition safeguards in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures. The appellants were granted liberty to initiate proceedings regarding their land rights and to claim compensation for illegal demolition.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The core ratio lies in the interpretation of Sections 27 and 43 of the 1973 Act and the application of the constitutional guarantee of Article 21. The Court held that valid service of notice is foundational to the exercise of demolition powers. Reading Section 43(1)(d), the Court interpreted the phrase “if such person cannot be found” to require multiple bona fide attempts over different days. A single perfunctory attempt could not satisfy this statutory threshold. Thus, affixture without repeated efforts at personal service was invalid.

The Court further held that demolition under Section 27 cannot proceed without ensuring reasonable opportunity to show cause. If service itself is defective, the opportunity becomes illusory. The statutory right of appeal under Section 27(2) requires that the order be served and that sufficient time be provided. Demolition within 24 hours of the only actual service was held to be arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The ratio also affirms that the right to shelter is integral to Article 21, and therefore any deprivation must satisfy substantive and procedural due process. The PDA’s action failed both tests. The Court’s reference to “bulldozer justice” underscores the impermissibility of punitive demolition without adherence to law.

Thus, the ratio decides that demolition of residential property without strict compliance with statutory service requirements, reasonable opportunity, and observance of appellate rights is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court’s comments on the broader administrative culture of summary demolitions constitute obiter. The Court criticised the recurring pattern of authorities resorting to demolitions as immediate punitive measures, cautioning that such practices undermine the rule of law. Its strong remark that this case joins the growing trend of “bulldozer justice” serves as a warning that administrative bodies must internalise constitutional norms.

Another significant obiter is the reaffirmation of the guidelines from In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, which, though delivered subsequently, were described as embodying essential procedural safeguards that should guide all demolition action. The Court stressed digital intimation to the District Magistrate and dual modes of service (registered post and affixture), emphasising transparency and avoidance of back-dating of notices.

Further, the Court’s discussion that even though the appellants were no longer seeking reconstruction, they remained free to pursue compensation proceedings marks a recognition of the inherent tort-like liability of authorities for unconstitutional demolition.

These reflections do not form part of the ratio but enhance the jurisprudence on state accountability, urban governance, and constitutional discipline.

c. GUIDELINES

The Court directed the PDA to “scrupulously follow” the guidelines laid down in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024). These include:

1. No demolition without prior show-cause notice granting at least 15 days from the date of receipt.

2. Mandatory service by registered post A.D., in addition to affixing the notice conspicuously on the property.

3. Digital intimation to the Collector/District Magistrate upon service of the notice, with an autogenerated acknowledgment.

4. Clear specification of the nature of unauthorized construction, grounds for demolition, required documents, and date of personal hearing.

5. Creation of a digital portal to record notices, replies, orders, and proof of service.

The Court’s reiteration of these guidelines indicates their binding force in all demolition cases, ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reasserts the supremacy of procedural fairness in administrative action. By striking down the demolition as illegal, the Court highlighted the indispensable nature of proper service and reasonable opportunity. The recognition that the appellants’ right to shelter was violated underscores the judiciary’s continued insistence that state power, particularly one affecting homes, must be exercised with restraint and legality.

The condemnation of high-handed practices marks a moral and constitutional rebuke to arbitrary administrative conduct. The decision strengthens citizens’ protections against punitive demolitions and reinforces statutory safeguards under urban development laws.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. 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 (Sections 27, 43)
ii. Constitution of India (Article 21)