Demolition Of Private Property Without Notice Or Hearing Violates Rule Of Law: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹20 Lakh Costs On State

While stating that merely setting aside such an illegal order is insufficient where State authorities have arbitrarily demolished a citizen’s property, the High Court imposed costs of ₹20 lakh on the State and directed accountability of the erring officials.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 38(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, pursuant to which the petitioner’s name was deleted from revenue records and her property was subsequently demolished.

A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur, while stating that “it is not merely a case of violation of the rule of law, but even the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court have been disobeyed with impunity”, accordingly held: “Mere setting aside of the impugned order will not be sufficient to render complete justice to the petitioner whose property has been illegally demolished by the State authorities. For the aforesaid action, adequate cost has to be imposed, taking into account the conduct of the state officials and the damage caused to the citizen whose property has been subjected to illegal demolition”.

Senior Advocate Vivek Raj Singh appeared for the petitioner, while the State was represented by Senior Advocate Satish Kumar.

Background

The petitioner had purchased the disputed land through a registered sale deed from the successors-in-interest of the hooking. The land stood declared in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor by a decree passed in 1975 under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which had attained finality and was never challenged by the State.

Despite the petitioner’s name being duly mutated in the revenue records, suo motu proceedings were initiated under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code for the correction of records. Without issuing any notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order declaring the land as Gaon Sabha property.

On the strength of the said order, a revenue team was constituted, the petitioner’s structure standing on the land was demolished, and the land was thereafter handed over for the construction of a government building.

Court’s Observation

The Allahabad High Court found that the entire exercise undertaken by the revenue authorities was ex parte, illegal, and arbitrary. It observed that Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code only permits correction of clerical errors and that “merely on noticing that some construction has arisen or is existing on any gram sabha land does not give suo moto power to any authority to proceed to demolish the said structure in absence of any proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code”.

Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, the Court reiterated that no demolition can be carried out without a prior show cause notice and observance of principles of natural justice. It held that the respondents had acted with complete disregard for statutory safeguards and judicial directions.

The Bench further stressed that “there is serious infringement of the rights of the petitioner pertaining to the right to property, and basic fundamental rights cannot be left in the hands of such authorities who themselves failed to uphold the rule of law”.

The Court emphasised that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional right protected under Article 300A, and no person can be deprived of property except by the procedure established by law. It was observed that the actions of the authorities reflected mala fides and abuse of power.

The Court further noted that “the conduct of the Tehsil / Sub Divisional Magistrate, indicates that the highest revenue officials of the District are clearly oblivious of the rights and duties which has been conferred on them by the law and also ignorant of direction of various courts”.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the concerned official had "exercised the powers under Section 38 without any authority or jurisdiction", while stressing that "there is no scope for arbitrariness by officials, and that no one can be punished or made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land."

Conclusion

In view of the above, the Allahabad High Court held that both the order passed under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code and the subsequent demolition were illegal and arbitrary. The Court held that merely setting aside the impugned order would not render complete justice to the petitioner whose property had been unlawfully demolished.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with costs of ₹20 lakhs, payable by the State to the petitioner within two months. The Court further directed that possession of the vacant land be handed back to the petitioner within two weeks.

Additionally, the State was directed to conduct an inquiry through an officer not below the rank of Additional Chief Secretary and to recover the costs from the responsible officials, including the highest officer involved in the illegal exercise.

The Court also directed the State to take immediate steps to adequately train its revenue officials, as they deal with the serious property rights of the entire rural population of Uttar Pradesh, who are entitled to speedy and quality justice.

Cause Title: Savitri Sonkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vivek Raj Singh, with Advocates Akshat Kumar, Shantanu Sharma, Kunwar Naresh Vardhan Singh, Utkarsh Singh, Sukrit Singh and Siddhartha Misra

Respondents: Senior Advocate Satish Kumar, Advocate Prem Singh.

Click here to read/download Judgment