Omar Rashid 
New Delhi: “Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law,” the Supreme Court has stated, calling for punitive criminal action against individual officials who sanction or carry out unlawful demolition of people’s properties.
If “bulldozer justice” was permitted, the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter, the court observed in a strong indictment of the arbitrary demolition of properties in BJP- ruled Uttar Pradesh.
“Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilised 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,” the apex court said.
Court directs UP government to pay compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to senior journalist
A three-judge Bench comprising outgoing Chief Justice of India D.Y Chandrachud along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made the observations on November 6 while directing the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government to pay senior journalist Manoj Tibrewal a compensation of Rs 25 lakh after his ancestral house and shop were unlawfully demolished by officials for widening a road.
Tibrewal had in October 2019 written to the court complaining of the unlawful demolition of his property in Mohalla Hamid Nagar in Maharajganj district. The court had registered the complaint as a suo motu writ petition and in 2020 issued notice to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police Maharajganj.
After going through the disclosures made by the government, the Supreme Court ruled that the “demolition was high-handed and without the authority of law.”
“The demolition was preceded only by a Munadi (public announcement through drum beating). 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,” said the court.
The court directed the chief secretary of UP to take suitable action including penal measures to ensure accountability of individual officials who have acted in violation of law. The directions would have to be implemented within a month, the court said.
The bench also directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the court to circulate a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories to ensure compliance with the directions that have been issued in regard to the procedure to be followed for the purpose of road widening in general.
The three-judge bench said that officials of the state who carry out or sanction such unlawful action must be proceeded against for 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,” the court said.
‘Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties’
“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,” the court said in its 15-page judgment.
The court stressed that there were 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, the court said.
“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,” the apex court said.
In the Maharajganj case, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Adityanath-led UP government had produced no document to establish the original width of the state highway which was notified as NH 730, a National Highway. No material was produced by the state to indicate whether any enquiry or demarcation was carried to earmark the encroachments.
The government of UP also failed to disclose the precise extent of the encroachment, the width of the existing road, the width of the notified highway and the extent of the property of the petitioner which actually fell within the notified width.
The state also failed to produce any justification for why the demolition was required to be carried out beyond even the area of alleged encroachment. A report by the National Human Rights Commission in the matter has indicated that the demolition was far in excess of the alleged encroachment which was to the extent of 3.70 meters.
Journalist Tiberwal, the petitioner in the case, had told court that the demolition of his property was a reprisal for a newspaper report which contained allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the construction of the road in question.