1

2024 INSC 863 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 1294 OF 2020

In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash … Petitioner

Vs

….. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

1 On 04 October 2019, Shri Manoj Tibrewal, a senior journalist, addressed a letter to this

Court complaining of the unlawful demolition of his ancestral residential house and

shop described as House Number 117, Ward Number 16, Mohalla Hamid Nagar,

District Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh by the authorities of the State. A suo motu Writ

Petition was registered before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on the

basis of the said letter 1.

2 On 07 December 2020, notice was issued to the District Magistrate and the

Superintendent of Police, District Maharajganj.

3 In order to obviate any controversy in regard to the facts, we would proceed on the

Signature Not Verified basis of the facts as revealed in counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate.
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2024.11.09
20:09:02 IST
1
Reason: WP (Civil) No 1294 of 2020.
 2

4 The counter affidavit states that on 7 March 2012, the road on which the petitioner’s

house was situated was notified as a national highway (National Highway No. 730) 2

under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Prior to this notification, the

road was a state highway spanning from District Pilibhit via Bahraich, Balrampur and

Maharajganj to Padrauna.

5 Subsequently, on 13 March 2018, Government of India sanctioned the widening of

the existing road. A final Detailed Project Report was prepared stating that the

applicable right of way for the chainage between two sections from KM 484 to KM

505.120, was 30 meters. Following the sanction by the Government of India, an

agreement was executed on 2 May 2018 between the State Public Works

Department 3 and Mahakaleshwar Infratech Private Limited 4 for the execution of the

work. The work order stated that the work would commence on 18 February 2019

and conclude on 17 February 2020.

6 The counter affidavit states that in June 2019, it emerged after identifying the right of

way that out of the total sanctioned length of 21.120 km, about 4 kilometers of the

stretch fell within Maharajganj town. It is alleged that the petitioner was one of

several persons who had encroached upon the land of NH 730. According to the

State, he had been directed to remove the encroachment from the land by way of

a Munadi announcement (by beat of drums) from June 2019; between 25 August

2019 and 30 August 2019 and between 1 September 2019 and 6 September 2019.

2 “NH 730”.
3 “PWD”
4 “MIPL”
 3

7 On 4 July 2019, it is alleged, the mother of the petitioner made an application to the

District Magistrate requesting him not to demolish her house by placing reliance on

an interim order dated 14 November 1975 passed by the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad in a 1975 writ petition styled as Babulal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. By the

said interim order, the High Court had issued notice in the writ petition and directed

that the petitioner’s house shall not be demolished except “in accordance with

some statutory provisions of law and after giving to the petitioners a reasonable

opportunity of showing cause” until further orders.

8 On 8 September 2019, Shri Shubh Karan Singh, the brother of the petitioner is stated

to have furnished a letter to the District Magistrate averring that he had purchased

the house/land which is registered in the revenue records under Abadi Land

category 6.2; and that the house was co-owned by three persons. However, the

letter stated that the writ petition was eventually dismissed in default. The letter

further stated that in the event that the house was to be demolished for the

construction of the national highway, compensation ought to be given to the

brother of the petitioner.

9 According to the Collector, on the evening of 12 September 2019, the occupants of

the house were called upon to remove all their belongings and on 13 September

2019, “the team removed the encroachment”.

10 Lakshmi Devi Tibrewal, the mother of the petitioner instituted a writ petition before

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 28 September 2019 5. The petition

5 WP No. 1335 of 2020.

 4

eventually came to be dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 18 January 2020

of the High Court.

11 On 4 October 2019, the petitioner moved a complaint before the National Human

Rights Commission, 6 which was registered as Case No 27074/24/49/2019. NHRC

constituted a team of two inspectors for conducting a spot enquiry.

12 On 5 November 2019, the petitioner’s brother filed an affidavit stating that there was

a two-storeyed ancestral house which was constructed in Hameednagar pursuant

to the purchase of the house by his late father on 6 June 1964 by a registered deed

in which he, the deponent had a 1/3 share. According to him, a registered deed of

partition was executed in the family on 25 November 1967.

13 When in 1975, the Public Works Department 7 attempted to demolish the house for

the construction of a road, a writ petition was instituted before the High Court in

which, on 14 November 1975, a Division Bench had passed an interim order. Since

the partition could not be implemented, a civil suit was stated to have been

instituted as between the co-sharers.

14 The Collector states that the brother of the petitioner has consented for the

demolition of property to the extent of his share.

15 When the petitioner moved the NHRC by a letter dated 04 October 2019, a detailed

enquiry ensued. The enquiry culminated in a report dated 3 February 2020, whereby

the NHRC concluded that :

6“NHRC”
7 “PWD”
 5

(i) No notice was given prior to the demolition, save and except for a public

announcement through loudspeakers;

(ii) The house of the petitioner who was the complainant before the NHRC was

constructed on land purchased by his grandfather in 1960 and 1964;

(iii) The spot inspections and measurements done by Revenue Department

officials in the presence of the NHRC enquiry team revealed that the extent

of the encroachment on Government land was about 3.70 meters in length

and demolition of that limited extent was justified because the land was

falling under a 16-meter-wide road;

(iv) However, the house was demolished beyond the extent of the

encroachment of 3.70 meters and the actual demolition was in fact

between 5 to 8 meters;

(v) No compensation has been tendered for the demolition of the property;

(vi) The demolition action commenced on 7 July 2019 and on 13 September

2019, the house, which was 16 meters from the center of the road was

demolished; and

(vii) The video clip provided by the officials of NH-PWD revealed that household

goods, as alleged by the complainant, were still in the house before the work

of demolition commenced.

16 In this backdrop, the findings of the NHRC indicate that at the highest, demolition to

the limited extent of 3.70 meters may have been justified on the ground of
 6

encroachment but there was no justification for the demolition beyond the 3.70

meters. The NHRC concluded that the government agency had failed to provide

any documents to support that the road in front of the petitioner’s house was 32

meters (16 meters on each side from the centre of the road). The revenue records

and the NH-PWD records revealed that the road width in front of the house was only

16 meters (8 meters on each side from the centre of the road). However, the District

administration and officers demolished properties beyond the permissible extent,

upto 32 meters (16 meters from the centre of the road on both sides) without

authority of law.

17 The NHRC, therefore, opined that a prima facie violation of the human rights of the

petitioner and his family was established. The NHRC:

(i) Issued notice under Section 18(a)(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,

1993 to the Government of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary to show

cause why interim compensation ought not to be directed to be paid to the

petitioner;

(ii) Directed the Director General of Police to register an FIR on the petitioner’s

complaint and have it investigated by the CBCID; and

(iii) Directed the Chief Secretary to take Departmental/punitive action against

the errant officers of the District Administration, PWD or Police who

dispossessed the petitioner and his family.

18 Pursuant to the above directions of NHRC, the Government of Uttar Pradesh

responded by a communication dated 21 April 2020. The communication broadly

 7

flagged the grievance of the State Government that the version of the State

Government was not adequately heard during the NHRC enquiry. It also stated that

a separate enquiry was being conducted by the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti.

19 The first report of the NHRC was followed by an order dated 6 July 2020 whereby a

recommendation was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh

to pay a compensation of Rs 5 Lakhs to the petitioner and his family for the loss

caused to them. The Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police were

directed to submit compliance reports.

20 The NHRC order dated 06 July 2020 was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh in

a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The writ petition is

pending before the High Court.

21 Besides the NHRC investigation, the issue was investigated by the Commissioner,

Basti. The findings recorded by the Commissioner in an investigation report dated 18

June 2020 are extracted below :

“After scrutiny and on-site inspection of records related to

the case, it was found that:

1. For widening of the national highway in question, the

DPR was not prepared by making a correct
assessment of the availability of land, land
requirement, etc. on the spot as per rules.

2. During road widening, written notice should have

been issued giving sufficient time in connection with
the removal of the affected houses and other
establishments/shops. Whereas in this case a notice,
regarding the removal of the alleged encroachment
was not issued. Rather, on 12-09-2019, before the
demolition in question, Duggi-Munadhi was made,
which was confirmed on the spot, but for such a big
 8

action, mere Duggi-Munadhi was not enough. For this,

notice should be issued in writing2. During road
widening, written notice should have been issued
giving sufficient time in connection with the removal
of the affected houses and other
establishments/shops. Whereas in this case a notice,
regarding the removal of the alleged encroachment
was not issued. Rather, on 12-09-2019, before the
demolition in question, Duggi-Munadhi was made,
which was confirmed on the spot, but for such a big
action, mere Duggi-Munadhi was not enough. For this,
notice should be issued in writing to the affected
persons as per rules. Which has not been done. to the
affected persons as per rules. Which has not been
done.

3. It has been accepted by NH officials themselves that

16-16 meters of land is to be taken from the middle to
both sides for junction, and according to revenue
records, there is only 16 meters' width (8-8 meters from
the middle of the road) of land is available on the
spot. In such a situation, legal process has not been
followed for additional land.
4. In the construction of the questioned road, as per the
rules, compensation of landholding and other
ownership land should be determined, which has not
been done.

5. The officials of the National Highway demolished the

complainant's house by getting the support of the
district administration in an illegal way by hiding the
true facts, which was not fair.

6. On 04/07/2019, Smt. Laxmi Devi, wife of Shri Sushil

Kumar Tibrewal, presented a letter before the then
District Magistrate Maharajganj and it was conveyed
that Digar Araji was being marked, out of the road. In
this regard, no information and prior notice has been
given to them. If land is acquired by damaging the
house etc. of the applicant, then appropriate
compensation should be provided to him. According
to the records, no action was taken at this time, due
to which the dispute in question arose. The
construction should have been destroyed only after
determining this relationship, and after determining
and distributing the compensation, which has not
been done. Therefore, the then District Magistrate,
 9

Maharajganj seems guilty for not following the

procedure laid down in the case in question.

7. As far as the question regarding complainant

attached at different levels presented with
appointment section-5 of Uttar Pradesh Government
letter 52/2-5-2020 dated 27/01/2020 and G-1-15 / 2-5-
2020 dated 07/02/2020, it is worth mentioning that, in
the complaint letters addressed to the Director,
Enforcement Directorate, Government of India and
Government of India, the Hon'ble Prime Minister,
complaint regarding the Disproportionate assets of
Amarnath Upadhyay, then District Magistrate,
Maharajganj. It has been requested to investigate the
issue by making a high-level team. Therefore, it would
not be expedient to make any kind of comments etc.
in this regard from this level.”

22 Following a representation by the District Magistrate, the Commissioner passed a

further order dated 31 July 2020 whereby he observed :

“It is clear that administrative before providing the

administrative support, the then above District
Magistrate Maharaganj had full responsibility to
investigate the fact from their revenue records that
whether the land on which National Highway is
constructing a road claiming to be in their ownership
belongs to them or not. Without verifying the same
from the revenue and tehsil records, the house in
question was demolished through police and
administrative support which was not appropriate
from any view point. During the terrestrial inspection, it
was found by me that the width of the road at the site
in question has been reduced. The place where the
complainant's house was located is not mentioned as
a road land in the maps. The responsibility Of
demarcating and fixing the land of the road which
belongs to Public Works department, is of the then
District Magistrate Maharaganj. Therefore, the
representation/ statement furnished by the then
District Magistrate Maharaganj Sh. Amarnath
Upadhyay to the effect that he had no direct
responsibility in the case in question cannot be
accepted under any circumstances. Therefore, the
representation/ assertion submitted by the then District
 10

Magistrate Sh. Amarnath Upadhyay is not acceptable

at all.”

23 We have heard Mr Siddharth Bhatnagar, senior counsel who appeared on behalf of

the petitioner and Ms Tulika Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State of Uttar Pradesh.

24 We are not inclined to accept the request of the counsel for the State for a further

adjournment of these proceedings, having due regard to the fact that pleadings

have been completed and the Court is required to evaluate material that has been

placed on the record for deciding upon the legality of the action.

25 The following position emerges from the narration of facts :

(i) The State of Uttar Pradesh has produced no document to establish the

original width of the State Highway which was notified as NH 730, a National

Highway;

(ii) No material has been produced by the State of Uttar Pradesh to indicate

whether any enquiry or demarcation was carried to earmark the

encroachments;

(iii) There is no material to indicate that the land had been acquired before the

work of demolition was carried out beyond a statement on affidavit that

there was ‘encroachment’;

(iv) The State has failed to disclose :

(a) The precise extent of the encroachment;

 11

(b) The width of the existing road;

(c) The width of the notified highway;

(d) The extent of the property of the petitioner which actually fell within

the notified width; and

(v) Any justification for why the demolition was required to be carried out

beyond even the area of alleged encroachment as the report which

has been submitted by the NHRC would indicate that the demolition

was far in excess of the alleged encroachment which was to the

extent of 3.70 meters.

26 The demolition was preceded only by a Munadi. There was no written notice; and

no disclosure of the basis of demarcation or the extent of the demolition to the

occupiers. Even in respect of the area allegedly encroached no due process was

followed and a written notice was not issued.

27 From the above facts that have emerged, based on very disclosures made by the

State of Uttar Pradesh, it is clear that the demolition was high-handed and without

the authority of law.

28 At this stage, it may be also material to note the allegation of the petitioner in his

letter dated 4 October 2019 addressed to the Secretary General which stated :

“a few days before the demolition of the house, my father

had demanded an inquiry by the SIT about the huge
irregularities, bribes and corruption taking place in the
construction being done with a cost of Rs.185 crore, of the
20 km road at the NH – 730 between 484 to 505 km. This
had been published in the local newspapers. The local
political and administrative people were vexed with us for
 12

demanding an inquiry into a construction costing 185 crore

rupees, and were seething with anger hidden inside them.”

29 The petitioner has alleged that the demolition was a reprisal for a newspaper report

which contained allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the construction of the

road in question. We need not engage with this aspect, save and except to the

extent that it supplies the background to the grievance of the petitioner. In any

case, such high-handed and unilateral action by the State Government cannot be

countenanced. Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of

jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is

permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will

take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be

throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate

security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The law does not

undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public property and

encroachments. There are municipal laws and town-planning legislation which

contain adequate provisions for dealing with illegal encroachments. Where such

legislation exists the safeguards which are provided in it must be observed. We

propose to lay down certain minimum thresholds of procedural safeguards which

must be fulfilled before taking action against properties of citizens. The state must

follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or

unlawfully constructed structures. Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the

rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to

property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter. Officials of the state

who carry out or sanction such unlawful action must be proceeded against for
 13

disciplinary action. Their infractions of law must invite criminal sanctions. Public

accountability for public officials must be the norm. Any action in respect of public

or private property must be backed by due process of law.

30 Before acting in pursuance of a road widening project, the State or its

instrumentalities must :

(i) Ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of official records/maps;

(ii) Carry out a survey/demarcation to ascertain whether there is any

encroachment on the existing road with reference to the existing

records/maps;

(iii) If an encroachment is found, issue a proper, written notice to the

encroachers to remove the encroachment;

(iv) In the event that the noticee raises an objection with regard to the

correctness or the validity of the notice, decide the objection by a speaking

order in due compliance with the principles of natural justice;

(v) If the objection is rejected, furnish reasonable notice to the person against

whom adverse action is proposed and upon the failure of the person

concerned to act, proceed in accordance with law, to remove the

encroachment unless restrained by an order of the competent authority or

court; and

(vi) If the existing width of road including the State land adjoining the road is not

sufficient to accommodate the widening of the road, steps must be taken by

 14

the State to acquire the land in accordance with law before undertaking the

road widening exercise.

31 In the present case, we conclude that the entire process which was followed by the

State was high handed. We, therefore, direct as follows :

(i) The State must make payment of punitive compensation;

(ii) The Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to have

an enquiry conducted into the entire matter pertaining to the illegal

demolition, against all concerned officers of the state and the contractors

who are responsible for the illegal demolition. In addition, disciplinary action

must be initiated against any officer who is found to be involved in the illegal

demolition, not only of the house of the petitioner but of other similarly

situated properties in the area which were similarly demolished without

adequate notice; and

(iii) The Chief Secretary of the Government of UP shall lodge a First Information

Report as directed by the NHRC. The FIR shall be investigated by the CB-CID.

32 The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to pay the petitioner compensation in the

amount of Rs twenty-five Lakhs, as an interim measure. By way of abundant caution,

we clarify that this compensation shall not come in the way of the petitioner, should

he choose to pursue any other proceedings which are available in law for

compensation for the demolition and for the taking over of property without the

authority of law.
 15

33 The Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh shall, after conducting the

enquiry, take suitable action including penal measures to ensure accountability of

individual officials who have acted in violation of law. The implementation of these

directions shall be initiated no later than within a period of one month from the date

of this order. Disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within four months of

initiation.

34 The Registrar (Judicial) shall circulate a copy of this judgment to the Chief

Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories to ensure compliance with the directions

which have been issued in regard to the procedure to be followed for the purpose

of road widening in general.

35 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

36 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

…...…...….......………………....…CJI.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…...…...….......………………....…..J.
[J B Pardiwala]

…...…...….......………………....…..J.
[Manoj Misra]
New Delhi;
November 06, 2024