High Court order set aside as Supreme Court finds demolition of homes illegal for defective notice; PDA fined Rs.10 lakh in each appeal

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard appeals challenging the summary demolition of residential structures by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) purportedly under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The appeals arose out of Special Leave Petitions impugning an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 8th March, 2021 and concerned whether statutory notice and opportunity to appeal were lawfully afforded before demolition.

The Court held that the demolition was illegal for failure to effect proper service of the show-cause notice and for denying the owners the statutory opportunity of appeal; it set aside the impugned High Court order and quantified costs against the PDA. The bench described the actions as “high-handed and illegal” and observed that “These cases shock our conscience.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is clear that only after genuine multiple efforts are made to find the person on more than one day, one can say that ‘the person cannot be found’. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the address and affixes it after finding that on that day, the person concerned is unavailable at a given time. The words ‘if such a person cannot be found’ cannot be given any other interpretation. As stated earlier, it is evident that repeated efforts have to be made to effect personal service. Only if those efforts fail, can the other two options be resorted to. One is of affixing and the second is of sending by registered post. Considering the drastic consequences provided in Section 27, recourse should usually be taken to both modes.” The Court further emphasised that the “right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21” and reaffirmed that the rule of law must prevail over summary administrative action.

Background The PDA issued a show-cause notice dated 18th December, 2020 which, on the PDA’s own account, was affixed on the structures the same day; the Zonal Officer passed an order dated 8th January, 2021 directing demolition, also reportedly affixed. A subsequent communication dated 1st March, 2021 was sent by registered post and was served on the appellants on 6th March, 2021; demolition by bulldozers took place on 7th March, 2021. The appellants challenged the action, alleging defective service and denial of the opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act. The PDA relied on its counter affidavit asserting service by affixation and subsequent mailing.

The Supreme Court examined Section 27 and Section 43 of the 1973 Act and applied the Court’s own directions in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291), including paragraph 91A which required a show-cause notice returnable within the statutory period, service by registered post A.D. and conspicuous affixation, and that the 15-day timeline for remedy would run from receipt of notice. The Court found that clause (d) of Section 43(1) applied only after genuine repeated attempts at personal service had failed and held that affixing a notice on a single visit did not satisfy the statutory requirement. Because the appellants did not receive a proper opportunity to avail the appellate remedy under Section 27(2), the demolition violated Article 21 and constituted arbitrary executive action amounting to “bulldozer justice.”

As relief, the Court set aside the High Court order, directed the PDA to follow the earlier directions on demolition procedure, ordered the PDA to pay costs of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs) in each appeal within six weeks (failing which interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the SLPs would accrue), directed provision of any outstanding copies of orders to the appellants, and left open the appellants’ right to pursue proceedings to establish land rights and to claim compensation for illegal demolition.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.4590 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.6466 of 2021) (Also connected: Civil Appeals Nos.4591–4594 of 2025) Case Title: Zulfiqar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior Counsel for the appellants (name not specified in judgment) For the Respondent(s): Attorney General for India appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh; Senior Counsel for Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) (names not specified in judgment)