Give 25 lakhs to the person whose house was demolished by bulldozer…Supreme Court’s order to Yogi government

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reprimanded the Uttar Pradesh government for the bulldozer action. Actually, the case is from Maharajganj district of UP, where houses were demolished through bulldozers for the road widening project. Suo motu cognizance was taken in this case, on which the Supreme Court was hearing. The Supreme Court has said that the UP government should give compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the person whose house has been demolished.

CJI DY Chandrachud said that you say that he was an encroacher of 3.7 square meters. We are hearing it, but are not giving any certificate, but how can you start demolishing people’s houses like this? This is anarchy, breaking into someone’s house.

He said that this is completely arbitrary, where has the proper procedure been followed? We have an affidavit, which states that no notice was issued, you only went to the site and informed the people. We may be willing to give punitive compensation in this case. Will this serve the purpose of justice?

Supreme Court asked, how many houses were demolished?
The petitioner’s lawyer urged an investigation into the matter. CJI asked the state government’s lawyer how many houses were demolished? The state’s lawyer said that there were 123 illegal constructions. Justice JB Pardiwala said what is the basis for you to say that it was unauthorized, what have you done since 1960, what were you doing for the last 50 years, very arrogant, the state has to respect the orders of the NHRC, you are sitting quietly and protecting the actions of an officer.

The CJI said that suo motu cognizance was taken on the letter addressed by Manoj Tibrewal complaining about the demolition of his ancestral house and shop located in Ward No. 16 Mohalla Hamidnagar. Notice was issued on the writ petition.

Justice JB Pardiwala told the UP government’s lawyer that your officer demolished the yellow marked area for road widening last night, the next morning you came with a bulldozer. This is like acquisition, you don’t come with a bulldozer and demolish the house, you don’t even give the family time to vacate the house. Widening was just an excuse, it doesn’t seem to be the reason for this whole exercise.

There is a need to investigate this matter – Supreme Court
The CJI said in the order that there is a need to investigate this matter. The state of UP has not produced any document to show the original width of the NH. Secondly there is no physical document to prove that any investigation was done to mark the encroachments. Thirdly there is no material at all to show that the land was acquired for the project.

The state government has failed to disclose the exact extent of encroachment. The width of the notified highway and the boundary of the petitioner’s property, which falls within the notified width. In such a situation, why was there a need to demolish the house beyond the area of ​​alleged encroachment? The NHRC report shows that the part demolished was much more than 3.75 meters.