Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Zulfiquar Haider – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J
1. Leave granted.
2. 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”).
3. 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.
4. 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:
(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
(1) Bulldozer Justice – Illegal demolition of residential premises/buildings violates right to shelter guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution – Residential structures of citizens cannot be demolish....
Proper service of notice under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act can be achieved through speed post, satisfying statutory requirements for natural justice.
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction; strict enforcement of demolition orders is essential to uphold the rule of law.
A demolition notice issued without proper service of a show-cause violates principles of natural justice, thus rendering the notice void and enabling the affected party to defend themselves upon re-i....
A tenant of an unauthorized construction lacks standing to challenge a demolition order as they are not considered 'any person aggrieved' under Section 400(3) of the KMC Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and adherence to procedural safeguards in administrative actions affecting property rights, ruling the demolition illegal due to failure to follow ....
Availability of alternate remedy under Section 347B of the DMC Act and the principles for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the respondents to issue notices, provide an opportunity for hearing, and refrain from taking coercive steps until final ord....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article