SC Criticizes Unilateral Demolition in Road Widening Case

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated November 6, 2024, in Manoj Tibrewal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3210], addressed the issue of arbitrary demolitions undertaken without adherence to due process.

In 2019, the Government of Uttar Pradesh initiated a road-widening project that led to the demolition of the house of petitioner, Manoj Tibrewal Akash. While the petitioner’s property had encroached just 3.7 meters onto the designated project road, the demolition extended between 5 and 8 meters. This demolition was carried out without issuing formal written notice or conducting proper land demarcation. Instead, the authorities relied solely on public announcements through drum-beating, or “munadi,” to notify affected individuals. No compensation was provided, nor was any lawful land acquisition process undertaken prior to the demolition.

This disproportionate and hasty demolition prompted a complaint that led the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to take suo motu cognizance of the matter in 2020, initiating a writ petition to probe the legality of the demolitions. The Court, upon examination, identified significant procedural irregularities. The Court held that the Government of Uttar Pradesh’s actions in demolishing the petitioner’s property were “high-handed” and “without authority of law.” The Court found that the demolition violated the principles of natural justice due to the absence of due process, including the failure to provide proper notice to the affected individuals. 

The Apex Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to legal standards and procedural fairness in such public projects. The Court criticized the state authorities for exceeding their legal bounds, labeling their actions as not only excessive but also illegal and violative of the rights of individuals. In particular, the Court highlighted that minimal procedural safeguards such as providing proper notice and offering an opportunity for a fair hearing were disregarded. This failure to respect the legal rights of the affected individuals illustrated a blatant disregard for due process in public projects that directly impact people’s lives.

To ensure that due process is followed in future road-widening projects and similar public infrastructure activities, the Apex Court issued a set of procedural guidelines:

1. The authorities must ascertain the existing width of the road through proper records or maps before initiating any road-widening project.
2. A survey must be conducted to identify any encroachments on the designated land.
3. In the event encroachments are identified, a formal written notice must be issued to the encroacher, granting them an opportunity to respond.
4. If the encroacher raises objections, the state must decide such objections by way of reasoned order, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
5. The authorities must provide the encroacher with a reasonable time to vacate the property before initiating demolition.
6. If the existing width of the road is insufficient to accommodate the planned expansion, additional land must be acquired through lawful procedures before proceeding with the project.

The Court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to pay interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs to the petitioner. The Court also directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to conduct a detailed inquiry into the actions of officials and contractors involved in the demolition and initiate disciplinary or criminal proceedings where violations were found. Furthermore, the Court mandated that the procedural guidelines set forth in its judgment be circulated to all states and union territories to ensure uniform compliance in similar cases.

This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining balance between the necessity for infrastructure development and safeguarding constitutional rights. It highlights that state actions must be transparent, fair, and strictly adhere to legal standards, thereby preventing arbitrary infringements on private property and ensuring that due process is consistently upheld in public infrastructure projects.