Leave granted.
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned Attorney General for India
appearing for the first respondent, State of Uttar
Pradesh. We have also heard the learned senior counsel
appearing for the second respondent, Prayagraj
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the
PDA”).
These cases shock our conscience. The residential
premises/buildings of the appellants have been high-
handedly and illegally demolished in the manner set out
in this judgment.
The demolition action is purportedly taken under
Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
“1973 Act”) by the PDA.
Section 27 of the 1973 Act reads thus:
“27. Order of demolition of building.-
(1) Where any development has been commenced or
is being carried on or has been completed in
contravention of the Master Plan or without the
permission approval or sanction referred to in
Section 14 or in contravention of any
conditions subject to which such permission,
approval or sanction has been granted, in
relation to the development area, then, without
prejudice to the provisions of Section 26, [the
Vice-Chairman or any officer of the Authority
empowered by him in that behalf] may make an
order directing that such development shall be
removed by demolition, filling or otherwise by
the owner thereof or by the person at whose
instance the development has been commenced or
is being carried out or has been completed,
within such period not being less than fifteen
days and more than forty days from the date on
which a copy of the order of removal, with a
brief statement of the reasons therefore, has
been delivered to the owner or that person as
may be specified in the order and on his
failure to comply with the order, [the Vice-
Chairman or such officer] may remove or cause
to be removed the development, and the expenses
of such removal as certified by [the Vice-
Chairman or such officer] shall be recoverable
from the owner of the person at whose instance
the development was commenced or was being
carried out or completed as arrears of land
revenue and no suit shall lie in the Civil
Court for recovery of such expenses:
Provided that no such order shall be
made unless the owner or the person concerned
has been given a reasonable opportunity to show
cause why the order should not be made.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order under
Sub-section (1) may appeal to the (Chairman)
against that order within thirty days from the
date thereof and the [Chairman} may after
hearing the parties to the appeal either allow
or dismiss the appeal or may reverse or vary
any part of the order.
(3) The [Chairman) may stay the execution of an
order against which an appeal has been filed
before it under Sub-Section (2).
(4) The decision of the (Chairman) on the
appeal and, subject only to such decision, the
order under Sub-section (1) shall be final and
shall not be questioned in any Court.
(5) The provisions of this section shall be in
addition to, and not in or derogation of, any
other provision relating to demolition of
buildings of contained in any other law for the
time being in force.”
Now, we come to the facts of the case. There is no
dispute that the facts of these cases are similar. We
are, therefore, referring to the factual aspects in the
first case in the group.
As can be seen from the counter affidavit filed by
the PDA, a show-cause notice, as contemplated by the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the 1973 Act,
was issued on 18th December 2020 by the PDA. On the very
day, the notice was allegedly affixed on the structure
with the remark that it was attempted to be served on the
appellants on the same day, but it could not be served.
Thereafter, an order dated 8th January, 2021, was passed
by the Zonal Officer of the PDA directing demolition of
the structures of the appellants. We find from the
counter affidavit that an identical endorsement was made
on the said order of 8th January, 2021 and that a copy of
the order was allegedly affixed. Thereafter, on 1st
March, 2021, another communication of the order of
demolition passed earlier was issued by the Zonal Officer
of the PDA to the appellants. Even though the said
communication was purportedly affixed on the same day, it
was also sent by Registered Post, which was served upon
the appellants on 6th March, 2021 and on 7th March, 2021,
the demolition of residential structures of the
appellants was carried out by use of bulldozers.
As far as service of notice is concerned, the law
has been subsequently laid down by this Court in the case
of In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of
structures1. Paragraph 91A of the said judgment reads
thus:
“91. At the outset, we clarify that these
directions will not be applicable if there is
an unauthorized structure in any public place
such as road, street, footpath, abutting
railway line or any river body or water bodies
and also to cases where there is an order for
demolition made by a Court of law.
A. NOTICE
i. No demolition should be carried out
without a prior show cause notice
returnable either in accordance with
the time provided by the local
municipal laws or within 15 days' time
from the date of service of such
notice, whichever is later.
ii. The notice shall be served upon the
owner/occupier by a registered post
A.D. Additionally, the notice shall
also be affixed conspicuously on the
outer portion of the structure in
question.
iii. The time of 15 days, stated herein
above, shall start from the date of
receipt of the said notice.
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291 iv. To prevent any allegation of
backdating, we direct that as soon as
the show cause notice is duly served,
intimation thereof shall be sent to the
office of Collector/District Magistrate
of the district digitally by email and
an auto generated reply acknowledging
receipt of the mail should also be
issued from the office of the
Collector/District Magistrate. The
Collector/DM shall designate a nodal
officer and also assign an email
address and communicate the same to all
the municipal and other authorities in
charge of building regulations and
demolition within one month from today.
v. The notice shall contain the details
regarding:
a. the nature of the unauthorized
construction.
b. the details of the specific
violation and the grounds of
demolition.
c. a list of documents that the
notice is required to furnish
along with his reply.
d. The notice should also specify
the date on which the personal
hearing is fixed and the
designated authority before whom
the hearing will take place;
vi. Every municipal/local authority
shall assign a designated digital
portal, within 3 months from today
wherein details regarding
service/pasting of the notice, the
reply, the show cause notice and the
order passed thereon would be
available.”
(emphasis added)
It is true that it is a subsequent decision.
Therefore, we have examined the provisions of the 1973
Act as regards the service of notice. Section 43 reads
thus:
“43. Services of notices, etc.-
(1) All notices, orders and other documents
required by this Act or any rule or
regulation made and there under to be served
upon any person shall save as otherwise
provided in this Act or such rule or
regulation be deemed to be duly served -
(a) Where the person to be served is a
company if the document is addressed to
the secretary of the company at its
registered Office or at its principal
office or place of business and is either-
(i) sent by registered post, or
(ii) delivered at the registered office
or at the principal office or place of
business of the company,
(b) where the person to be served is a
firm, if the document is, addressed to the
firm at its principal place of business,
identifying it by the name or style under
which its business is carried on and is
either-
(i) sent by registered post, or
(ii) delivered at the said place of
business;
(c) where the person to be served is a
public body or a corporation or society or
other body, if the document is addressed
to the as secretary, treasurer or other
chief officer of that body, corporation or
society at its principal office, and is
either-
(i) sent by registered post. Or
(ii) delivered at that office.,
(d) in any other case, if the document is
addressed to the person to be served and-
(i) is given or tendered to him, or
(ii) if such person cannot be found is
affixed on some conspicuous part of
his last known place of residence or
business, if within the development
area or is given or tendered to some
adult member of his family or is
affixed on some conspicuous part of
land or building to which it relates,
or
(iii) Is sent by registered post to
that person.
(2) Any document which is required or
authorised to be served on the owner or
occupier of any land or building may be
addressed 'the owner' or 'the occupier' as
the case may be of that land or building
(naming, that land or building) without
further name or description, and shall be
deemed to be duly served-
(a) If the document so addressed is sent
or delivered in accordance with Clause (d)
of Sub-section (1), or
(b) If the document so addressed or a copy
thereof so addressed, is delivered to some
person on the land or building or where
there is no person on the land or building
to whom it can be delivered, is affixed to
some conspicuous part of the land or
building.
(3) Where a document is served on a firm in
accordance with Clause (b) of Sub-section
(1), the document shall be deemed to be
served on each partner of that firm.
(4) For the purpose of enabling any document
to be served on the owner of any property,
the secretary to the Authority may by notice
in writing require the occupier (if any) of
the property to state the name and address
of the owner thereof.
(5) Where the person on whom a document is
to be served is a minor the service upon his
guardian or any adult member of his family
be deemed to be service upon the minor.
(6) A servant is not a member of the family
within the meaning of this section.”
(emphasis added)
Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 43 will
apply in this case. It provides that if a person to whom
the document is addressed is not found, it shall be
affixed on some conspicuous part of his last known place
of residence or business, or it should be tendered to
some adult member of his family. There is also an option
provided to send the document by registered post. Clause
(d)(2) uses the words “if such person cannot be found”.
The words are not “if such a person is not found”. 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
officers of the PDA must understand that before a
structure is demolished, every possible effort should be
made to effect a proper service of the show-cause notice.
It is their duty to do so. Moreover, after proper and
effective service of the order of demolition, at least 15
days’ time must be provided to the owner or occupier to
avail the remedy of an Appeal under Section 27(2) of the
1973 Act.
The notice issued on 18th December, 2020, was a show
cause calling upon the addressee to show cause why action
of demolition should not be taken. On page 168 of the
counter affidavit of the third respondent, a copy of the
notice dated 18th December, 2020 has been annexed which
records that the notice was pasted on that day. Multiple
efforts were not made to personally serve the notice.
The requirement of the proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 27 is to grant a reasonable opportunity for the
person whose structure is sought to be demolished to show
cause. This is no way of granting a reasonable
opportunity.
The authorities, especially the development
authority, must remember that the right to shelter is
also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. This right can be taken away only by following
due process of law. Moreover, our country is governed by
the rule of law, which is an integral part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. The residential
structures of citizens cannot be demolished in such a
summary manner without following the principles of
natural justice. As stated earlier, no efforts were made
to make the personal service of the show cause notice.
Although the option of sending it by registered post was
available, it was not exercised. The same is the case
with the order dated 8th January, 2021, directing the
demolition. On the very day, it was stated to be served
by affixing. A copy thereof was not sent by the
registered post. Only the communication dated 1st March,
2021, was sent by the registered post, which was served
upon the appellants on Saturday, 6th March, 2021. Within
twenty-four hours of the service of the said
communication, the structures were brazenly demolished.
As noted by this Court in the order issuing notice,
against an order of demolition made under sub-section (1)
of Section 27 of the 1973 Act, an appeal has been
provided under sub-section (2) of Section 27. The
demolition order passed on 8th January, 2021, was not
served upon the appellants. It was allegedly served by
affixing only. What was served was a subsequent
communication dated 1st March, 2021. Within 24 hours of
the service of the said communication, an action of
demolition was taken on a Sunday. This deprived the
appellants of their opportunity to avail of the remedy of
appeal under sub-Section (2) of Section 27 of the 1973
Act.
Therefore, the demolition action is completely
illegal, which violates the appellants' right to shelter
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The action is completely arbitrary. Moreover, carrying
out demolition of residential structures in such a high-
handed manner shows insensitivity on the part of the
statutory development authority. This is one more case of
bulldozer justice. The officers of the PDA have forgotten
that the rule of law prevails in our country.
Unfortunately, the State Government has supported the
PDA.
On the earlier occasion, we suggested to the
learned counsel for the appellants that we may permit
them to reconstruct the structures, subject to giving an
undertaking that in the event the appeal filed under sub-
Section (2) of Section 27 is dismissed, the same will
have to be demolished at their own cost.
Today, the learned senior counsel and the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, on instructions,
stated that the appellants are not in a position to
reconstruct the structures. In view of this statement,
there is now there is no occasion to direct the planning
authority to follow the due process of law in these
cases. However, considering the inhuman and illegal
action of demolition carried out, the planning authority
must be saddled with costs. We quantify the costs of Rs.
10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) in each case.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated
8th March, 2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad and dispose of these appeals by passing the
following order:
1) We direct the PDA to scrupulously follow the
directions in the decision of this Court in Re:
Directions in the matter of demolition of
structures1;
2) We direct the PDA to pay costs of
Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) in each appeal to
the appellants within a period of six weeks from
today. On the failure to pay the amount within the
stipulated time, it will carry interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the
present Special Leave Petitions till the payment;
3) Even assuming that a copy of the order referred
to in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the
third respondent is already served upon the
appellants, we direct the third respondent to
provide a copy thereof to the appellants; and
4) We leave it open to the appellants to file
appropriate proceedings to establish their rights in
respect of the land subject matter of these appeals.
They will also be entitled to file proceedings to
claim compensation on account of illegal demolition.
NEW DELHI; April 01, 2025.