The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakhs for "high-handed demolition" of an ancestral residential house and shop of a petitioner. The top court further ordered inquiry into the entire matter pertaining to illegal demolition in UP's Maharajganj district and disciplinary action against all erring officers as well as contractors who were responsible for illegal demolition.
A bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud slammed the Uttar Pradesh government and termed the entire action by the state as "high handed."
"How can you start demolishing people's houses like that? This is lawlessness..walking into somebody's house..." CJI Chandrachud remarked while hearing the case.
CJI further called the action by UP officials including the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, completely high-handed.
"Where is the due process followed? We have an affidavit that says no notice was issued, you only went to the site and informed the people!" CJI remarked.
A writ petition was moved by an aggrieved man against the demolition of his properties as "encroachment" by the UP government citing National Highway expansion. The court was informed that the NHRC report shows that demolition in the area was far in excess of the area of alleged encroachment.
"We direct punitive compensation and direct the chief secretary of UP to conduct an inquiry into the entire matter pertaining to illegal demolition against all officers including contractors who are responsible for illegal demolition. This will include disciplinary action against any officer who demolished not only the house of the petitioner but anybody else who met the same fate in the area," the Supreme Court ordered.
The top court today passed the said order after noting that the state of UP failed to produce original width of state highway notified as national highway.
"No material was placed to show whether any inquiry was conducted to figure out encroachers, there is no material produced to indicate that land was acquired before demolition was carried out. The state has failed to disclose the precise extent of encroachments, the width of the existing road, the width of notified highway, extent of property of petitioner which fall within the central line of highway and why the demolition was needed beyond the area of alleged encroachment. NHRC report shows demolition was far in excess of the area of alleged encroachment," the top court noted while dictating order.
The petitioner alleged that the demolition was a retaliatory measure after he informed the media about alleged irregularities in a road construction project.
The top court while putting an interim cost on the government said that while carrying out road widening, the State must ascertain existing width of the road, issue formal notices if any encroachments are found, and give residents the opportunity to raise objections.