IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 demolished without following principles of natural justice.
(2) Right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of Constitution of India – This right can be taken away only by following due process of law.

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:

“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.”

5. 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.

6. 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