IN RE: MANOJ TIBREWAL AKASHversusABC

                   [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2348 : 2024 INSC 863

                        In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash
                     (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1294 of 2020)
                                06 November 2024
                  [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,
                   J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]


                              Issue for Consideration
          Supreme Court laid down guidelines that State authorities must
          adhere to while removing illegal encroachments in relation to road
          widening projects.

                                    Headnotes†
          Petitioner’s letter regarding alleged illegal demolition of his
          house converted into suo moto writ petition – Certain portion
          of Petitioner’s house came to be notified as a part of road
          widening project (NH No. 370) in 2012 – Project sanctioned in
          2018 – Petitioner directed between June 2019 to 6 September
          2019 through Munadi announcement (by beat of drums) to
          remove his illegal encroachment from NH No. 370 – Petitioner’s
          family made requests to District Magistrate against demolition
          by relying on an 1975 interim order of Allahabad High Court
          in a writ petition ordering no demolition of Petitioner’s house
          except “in accordance with some statutory provisions of law
          and after giving to the petitioners a reasonable opportunity
          of showing cause” – Writ petition later dismissed in default –
          Petitioner’s family sought compensation from District
          Magistrate in the event of demolition – On 12 September
          2019, Petitioner’s family called to remove all their belongings
          and on 13 September 2019, demolition took place – Legality
          thereof challenged by Petitioner’s family before High Court
          and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
          NHRC ordered enquiry and report thereof inter-alia revealed
          violation of natural justice during demolition as no prior notice
          was given – Demolition was done beyond the alleged area of
          encroachment – No compensation awarded – State agency’s
          claim as regards width of the road in front of house being 32
          m found contrary to NH-PWD’s records and revenue records
          wherein such width was stated to be only 16 m:
*Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                              2349

                       In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash


     Held: The Court held that the demolition was high-handed and
     without the authority of law as State agency failed to give prior
     written notice and also failed to disclose: (i) actual extent of
     encroachment; (ii) width of the existing road and that of the notified
     highway; (iii) extent of Petitioner’s property which fell within the
     notified width; and justification for demolition beyond encroached
     area – Such demolition is a threat to the legal right to property
     recognized under Article 300A and is unsustainable in a civilised
     system of jurisprudence. [Paras 25-29]
     The Court issued guidelines which require state authorities
     to mandatorily: (i) ascertain width of existing road in terms of
     official records/maps; (ii) conduct a survey to identify possible
     encroachment thereon; (iii) issuing a proper, written notice to the
     encroachers to remove the encroachment; (iv) on receiving any
     objection from notice regarding correctness/validity of the notice,
     decide the objection by a speaking order by following principles
     of natural justice; (v) If the objection is rejected, give a reasonable
     notice to the person affected and if such a person fails to act, he
     must be proceeded against in accordance with law, to remove
     the encroachment unless restrained by an order of the competent
     authority or court; and (vi) If the existing width of road including
     the State land adjoining the road is not sufficient to accommodate
     the widening of the road, steps must be taken by the State to
     acquire the land in accordance with law before undertaking the
     road widening exercise. [Para 30]
     On facts, the Court awarded punitive damages of INR 25 lakhs to
     the Petitioner as interim measures and directed the Chief Secretary
     of the State to conduct an inquiry against erring officers and
     contractors – Not only in relation to Petitioner’s house but also in
     relation to any other similarly situated property in the concerned
     area – The implementation of these directions was directed to be
     initiated within a month. [Paras 31-33]

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
     Plea of juvenility; Juvenile; Date of commission of offence; Stage of
     raising the plea; Irrelevant; Proper inquiry; Prima facie satisfaction;
     JJ Act; Documents/evidence; Ossification test.
2350                                                        [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


                                     Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1294
      of 2020
      (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)

                                   Appearances for Parties
      By Courts Motion.
      Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Shubham Kulshreshtha, Aditya
      Sidhra, Pracheta Kar, Nadeem Afroz, O.P. Vyas, Ms. Manju Sharma,
      Advs. for the Petitioner.
      Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Anuvrat Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.

                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                         Judgment

      Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

1.    On 04 October 2019, Shri Manoj Tibrewal, a senior journalist,
      addressed a letter to this Court complaining of the unlawful demolition
      of his ancestral residential house and shop described as House
      Number 117, Ward Number 16, Mohalla Hamid Nagar, District
      Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh by the authorities of the State. A suo
      motu Writ Petition was registered before this Court under Article 32
      of the Constitution on the basis of the said letter.1
2.    On 07 December 2020, notice was issued to the District Magistrate
      and the Superintendent of Police, District Maharajganj.
3.    In order to obviate any controversy in regard to the facts, we would
      proceed on the basis of the facts as revealed in counter affidavit
      filed by the District Magistrate.
4.    The counter affidavit states that on 7 March 2012, the road on which
      the petitioner’s house was situated was notified as a national highway
      (National Highway No. 730)2 under the provisions of the National



1    WP (Civil) No 1294 of 2020.
2    “NH 730”.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                         2351

                        In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash


      Highways Act, 1956. Prior to this notification, the road was a state
      highway spanning from District Pilibhit via Bahraich, Balrampur and
      Maharajganj to Padrauna.
5.    Subsequently, on 13 March 2018, Government of India sanctioned
      the widening of the existing road. A final Detailed Project Report was
      prepared stating that the applicable right of way for the chainage
      between two sections from KM 484 to KM 505.120, was 30 meters.
      Following the sanction by the Government of India, an agreement
      was executed on 2 May 2018 between the State Public Works
      Department3 and Mahakaleshwar Infratech Private Limited4 for the
      execution of the work. The work order stated that the work would
      commence on 18 February 2019 and conclude on 17 February 2020.
6.    The counter affidavit states that in June 2019, it emerged after
      identifying the right of way that out of the total sanctioned length of
      21.120 km, about 4 kilometers of the stretch fell within Maharajganj
      town. It is alleged that the petitioner was one of several persons who
      had encroached upon the land of NH 730. According to the State,
      he had been directed to remove the encroachment from the land
      by way of a Munadi announcement (by beat of drums) from June
      2019; between 25 August 2019 and 30 August 2019 and between
      1 September 2019 and 6 September 2019.
7.    On 4 July 2019, it is alleged, the mother of the petitioner made an
      application to the District Magistrate requesting him not to demolish
      her house by placing reliance on an interim order dated 14 November
      1975 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a 1975
      writ petition styled as Babulal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. By the
      said interim order, the High Court had issued notice in the writ petition
      and directed that the petitioner’s house shall not be demolished
      except “in accordance with some statutory provisions of law and
      after giving to the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of showing
      cause” until further orders.
8.    On 8 September 2019, Shri Shubh Karan Singh, the brother of the
      petitioner is stated to have furnished a letter to the District Magistrate
      averring that he had purchased the house/land which is registered



3    “PWD”
4    “MIPL”
2352                                                      [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


      in the revenue records under Abadi Land category 6.2; and that the
      house was co-owned by three persons. However, the letter stated
      that the writ petition was eventually dismissed in default. The letter
      further stated that in the event that the house was to be demolished
      for the construction of the national highway, compensation ought to
      be given to the brother of the petitioner.
9.    According to the Collector, on the evening of 12 September 2019,
      the occupants of the house were called upon to remove all their
      belongings and on 13 September 2019, “the team removed the
      encroachment”.
10. Lakshmi Devi Tibrewal, the mother of the petitioner instituted a writ
    petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 28
    September 2019.5 The petition eventually came to be dismissed as
    withdrawn by an order dated 18 January 2020 of the High Court.
11. On 4 October 2019, the petitioner moved a complaint before the
    National Human Rights Commission,6 which was registered as Case
    No 27074/24/49/2019. NHRC constituted a team of two inspectors
    for conducting a spot enquiry.
12. On 5 November 2019, the petitioner’s brother filed an affidavit
    stating that there was a two-storeyed ancestral house which was
    constructed in Hameednagar pursuant to the purchase of the house
    by his late father on 6 June 1964 by a registered deed in which he,
    the deponent had a 1/3 share. According to him, a registered deed
    of partition was executed in the family on 25 November 1967.
13. When in 1975, the Public Works Department7 attempted to demolish
    the house for the construction of a road, a writ petition was instituted
    before the High Court in which, on 14 November 1975, a Division
    Bench had passed an interim order. Since the partition could not
    be implemented, a civil suit was stated to have been instituted as
    between the co-sharers.
14. The Collector states that the brother of the petitioner has consented
    for the demolition of property to the extent of his share.



5    WP No. 1335 of 2020.
6    “NHRC”
7    “PWD”
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                     2353

                       In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash


15. When the petitioner moved the NHRC by a letter dated 04 October
    2019, a detailed enquiry ensued. The enquiry culminated in a report
    dated 3 February 2020, whereby the NHRC concluded that :
     (i)    No notice was given prior to the demolition, save and except
            for a public announcement through loudspeakers;
     (ii)   The house of the petitioner who was the complainant before the
            NHRC was constructed on land purchased by his grandfather
            in 1960 and 1964;
     (iii) The spot inspections and measurements done by Revenue
           Department officials in the presence of the NHRC enquiry team
           revealed that the extent of the encroachment on Government
           land was about 3.70 meters in length and demolition of that
           limited extent was justified because the land was falling under
           a 16-meter-wide road;
     (iv) However, the house was demolished beyond the extent of the
          encroachment of 3.70 meters and the actual demolition was in
          fact between 5 to 8 meters;
     (v)    No compensation has been tendered for the demolition of the
            property;
     (vi) The demolition action commenced on 7 July 2019 and on 13
          September 2019, the house, which was 16 meters from the
          center of the road was demolished; and
     (vii) The video clip provided by the officials of NH-PWD revealed
           that household goods, as alleged by the complainant, were
           still in the house before the work of demolition commenced.
16. In this backdrop, the findings of the NHRC indicate that at the highest,
    demolition to the limited extent of 3.70 meters may have been justified
    on the ground of encroachment but there was no justification for the
    demolition beyond the 3.70 meters. The NHRC concluded that the
    government agency had failed to provide any documents to support
    that the road in front of the petitioner’s house was 32 meters (16
    meters on each side from the centre of the road). The revenue
    records and the NH-PWD records revealed that the road width in
    front of the house was only 16 meters (8 meters on each side from
    the centre of the road). However, the District administration and
    officers demolished properties beyond the permissible extent, upto
2354                                                       [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     32 meters (16 meters from the centre of the road on both sides)
     without authority of law.
17. The NHRC, therefore, opined that a prima facie violation of the human
    rights of the petitioner and his family was established. The NHRC:
     (i)    Issued notice under Section 18(a)(1) of the Protection of Human
            Rights Act, 1993 to the Government of Uttar Pradesh through
            its Chief Secretary to show cause why interim compensation
            ought not to be directed to be paid to the petitioner;
     (ii)   Directed the Director General of Police to register an FIR on the
            petitioner’s complaint and have it investigated by the CBCID; and
     (iii) Directed the Chief Secretary to take Departmental/punitive
           action against the errant officers of the District Administration,
           PWD or Police who dispossessed the petitioner and his family.
18. Pursuant to the above directions of NHRC, the Government of Uttar
    Pradesh responded by a communication dated 21 April 2020. The
    communication broadly flagged the grievance of the State Government
    that the version of the State Government was not adequately heard
    during the NHRC enquiry. It also stated that a separate enquiry was
    being conducted by the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti.
19. The first report of the NHRC was followed by an order dated 6 July
    2020 whereby a recommendation was issued to the Chief Secretary,
    Government of Uttar Pradesh to pay a compensation of Rs 5 Lakhs
    to the petitioner and his family for the loss caused to them. The
    Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police were directed to
    submit compliance reports.
20. The NHRC order dated 06 July 2020 was challenged by the State of
    Uttar Pradesh in a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature
    at Allahabad. The writ petition is pending before the High Court.
21. Besides the NHRC investigation, the issue was investigated by the
    Commissioner, Basti. The findings recorded by the Commissioner
    in an investigation report dated 18 June 2020 are extracted below :
            “After scrutiny and on-site inspection of records related to
            the case, it was found that:
            1.   For widening of the national highway in question, the
                 DPR was not prepared by making a correct assessment
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                        2355

                      In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash


                of the availability of land, land requirement, etc. on
                the spot as per rules.
          2.    During road widening, written notice should have
                been issued giving sufficient time in connection
                with the removal of the affected houses and other
                establishments/shops. Whereas in this case a notice,
                regarding the removal of the alleged encroachment
                was not issued. Rather, on 12-09-2019, before the
                demolition in question, Duggi-Munadhi was made,
                which was confirmed on the spot, but for such a big
                action, mere Duggi-Munadhi was not enough. For
                this, notice should be issued in writing2. During road
                widening, written notice should have been issued
                giving sufficient time in connection with the removal
                of the affected houses and other establishments/
                shops. Whereas in this case a notice, regarding
                the removal of the alleged encroachment was not
                issued. Rather, on 12-09-2019, before the demolition
                in question, Duggi-Munadhi was made, which was
                confirmed on the spot, but for such a big action,
                mere Duggi-Munadhi was not enough. For this,
                notice should be issued in writing to the affected
                persons as per rules. Which has not been done. to
                the affected persons as per rules. Which has not
                been done.
          3.    It has been accepted by NH officials themselves that
                16-16 meters of land is to be taken from the middle
                to both sides for junction, and according to revenue
                records, there is only 16 meters’ width (8-8 meters
                from the middle of the road) of land is available on
                the spot. In such a situation, legal process has not
                been followed for additional land.
          4.    In the construction of the questioned road, as per
                the rules, compensation of landholding and other
                ownership land should be determined, which has
                not been done.
          5.    The officials of the National Highway demolished the
                complainant’s house by getting the support of the
2356                                                      [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                district administration in an illegal way by hiding the
                true facts, which was not fair.
          6.    On 04/07/2019, Smt. Laxmi Devi, wife of Shri Sushil
                Kumar Tibrewal, presented a letter before the then
                District Magistrate Maharajganj and it was conveyed
                that Digar Araji was being marked, out of the road.
                In this regard, no information and prior notice has
                been given to them. If land is acquired by damaging
                the house etc. of the applicant, then appropriate
                compensation should be provided to him. According
                to the records, no action was taken at this time,
                due to which the dispute in question arose. The
                construction should have been destroyed only after
                determining this relationship, and after determining
                and distributing the compensation, which has not
                been done. Therefore, the then District Magistrate,
                Maharajganj seems guilty for not following the
                procedure laid down in the case in question.
          7.    As far as the question regarding complainant attached
                at different levels presented with appointment
                section-5 of Uttar Pradesh Government letter 52/2-
                5-2020 dated 27/01/2020 and G-1-15 / 2-5-2020
                dated 07/02/2020, it is worth mentioning that, in
                the complaint letters addressed to the Director,
                Enforcement Directorate, Government of India and
                Government of India, the Hon’ble Prime Minister,
                complaint regarding the Disproportionate assets
                of Amarnath Upadhyay, then District Magistrate,
                Maharajganj. It has been requested to investigate
                the issue by making a high-level team. Therefore, it
                would not be expedient to make any kind of comments
                etc. in this regard from this level.”
22. Following a representation by the District Magistrate, the Commissioner
    passed a further order dated 31 July 2020 whereby he observed :
          “It is clear that administrative before providing the
          administrative support, the then above District Magistrate
          Maharaganj had full responsibility to investigate the fact
          from their revenue records that whether the land on
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                          2357

                        In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash


            which National Highway is constructing a road claiming
            to be in their ownership belongs to them or not. Without
            verifying the same from the revenue and tehsil records,
            the house in question was demolished through police and
            administrative support which was not appropriate from any
            view point. During the terrestrial inspection, it was found
            by me that the width of the road at the site in question has
            been reduced. The place where the complainant’s house
            was located is not mentioned as a road land in the maps.
            The responsibility Of demarcating and fixing the land of
            the road which belongs to Public Works department, is
            of the then District Magistrate Maharaganj. Therefore, the
            representation/ statement furnished by the then District
            Magistrate Maharaganj Sh. Amarnath Upadhyay to the
            effect that he had no direct responsibility in the case in
            question cannot be accepted under any circumstances.
            Therefore, the representation/ assertion submitted by the
            then District Magistrate Sh. Amarnath Upadhyay is not
            acceptable at all.”
23. We have heard Mr Siddharth Bhatnagar, senior counsel who appeared
    on behalf of the petitioner and Ms Tulika Mukherjee, learned counsel
    appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
24. We are not inclined to accept the request of the counsel for the
    State for a further adjournment of these proceedings, having due
    regard to the fact that pleadings have been completed and the Court
    is required to evaluate material that has been placed on the record
    for deciding upon the legality of the action.
25. The following position emerges from the narration of facts :
     (i)    The State of Uttar Pradesh has produced no document to
            establish the original width of the State Highway which was
            notified as NH 730, a National Highway;
     (ii)   No material has been produced by the State of Uttar Pradesh
            to indicate whether any enquiry or demarcation was carried to
            earmark the encroachments;
     (iii) There is no material to indicate that the land had been acquired
           before the work of demolition was carried out beyond a statement
           on affidavit that there was ‘encroachment’;
2358                                                      [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     (iv) The State has failed to disclose :
           (a)   The precise extent of the encroachment;
           (b)   The width of the existing road;
           (c)   The width of the notified highway;
           (d)   The extent of the property of the petitioner which actually
                 fell within the notified width; and
     (v)   Any justification for why the demolition was required to be
           carried out beyond even the area of alleged encroachment
           as the report which has been submitted by the NHRC would
           indicate that the demolition was far in excess of the alleged
           encroachment which was to the extent of 3.70 meters.
26. The demolition was preceded only by a Munadi. There was no
    written notice; and no disclosure of the basis of demarcation or the
    extent of the demolition to the occupiers. Even in respect of the area
    allegedly encroached no due process was followed and a written
    notice was not issued.
27. From the above facts that have emerged, based on very disclosures
    made by the State of Uttar Pradesh, it is clear that the demolition
    was high-handed and without the authority of law.
28. At this stage, it may be also material to note the allegation of the
    petitioner in his letter dated 4 October 2019 addressed to the Secretary
    General which stated :
           “a few days before the demolition of the house, my father
           had demanded an inquiry by the SIT about the huge
           irregularities, bribes and corruption taking place in the
           construction being done with a cost of Rs.185 crore, of
           the 20 km road at the NH – 730 between 484 to 505 km.
           This had been published in the local newspapers. The local
           political and administrative people were vexed with us for
           demanding an inquiry into a construction costing 185 crore
           rupees, and were seething with anger hidden inside them.”
29. The petitioner has alleged that the demolition was a reprisal for
    a newspaper report which contained allegations of wrongdoing in
    relation to the construction of the road in question. We need not
    engage with this aspect, save and except to the extent that it supplies
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                      2359

                       In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash


     the background to the grievance of the petitioner. In any case, such
     high-handed and unilateral action by the State Government cannot be
     countenanced. Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized
     system of jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high handed
     and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the
     state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective
     reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by
     a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate
     security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The
     law does not undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public
     property and encroachments. There are municipal laws and town-
     planning legislation which contain adequate provisions for dealing with
     illegal encroachments. Where such legislation exists the safeguards
     which are provided in it must be observed. We propose to lay down
     certain minimum thresholds of procedural safeguards which must
     be fulfilled before taking action against properties of citizens. The
     state must follow due process of law before taking action to remove
     illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures. Bulldozer
     justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be
     permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under
     Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter. Officials of the state
     who carry out or sanction such unlawful action must be proceeded
     against for disciplinary action. Their infractions of law must invite
     criminal sanctions. Public accountability for public officials must be
     the norm. Any action in respect of public or private property must
     be backed by due process of law.
30. Before acting in pursuance of a road widening project, the State or
    its instrumentalities must :
     (i)    Ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of official
            records/maps;

     (ii)   Carry out a survey/demarcation to ascertain whether there is
            any encroachment on the existing road with reference to the
            existing records/maps;

     (iii) If an encroachment is found, issue a proper, written notice to
           the encroachers to remove the encroachment;

     (iv) In the event that the noticee raises an objection with regard to
          the correctness or the validity of the notice, decide the objection
2360                                                          [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


           by a speaking order in due compliance with the principles of
           natural justice;

    (v)    If the objection is rejected, furnish reasonable notice to the
           person against whom adverse action is proposed and upon the
           failure of the person concerned to act, proceed in accordance
           with law, to remove the encroachment unless restrained by an
           order of the competent authority or court; and
    (vi) If the existing width of road including the State land adjoining
         the road is not sufficient to accommodate the widening of the
         road, steps must be taken by the State to acquire the land in
         accordance with law before undertaking the road widening
         exercise.
31. In the present case, we conclude that the entire process which was
    followed by the State was high handed. We, therefore, direct as
    follows :
    (i)    The State must make payment of punitive compensation;
    (ii)   The Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh is
           directed to have an enquiry conducted into the entire matter
           pertaining to the illegal demolition, against all concerned officers
           of the state and the contractors who are responsible for the
           illegal demolition. In addition, disciplinary action must be initiated
           against any officer who is found to be involved in the illegal
           demolition, not only of the house of the petitioner but of other
           similarly situated properties in the area which were similarly
           demolished without adequate notice; and
    (iii) The Chief Secretary of the Government of UP shall lodge a
          First Information Report as directed by the NHRC. The FIR
          shall be investigated by the CB-CID.
32. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to pay the petitioner
    compensation in the amount of Rs twenty-five Lakhs, as an
    interim measure. By way of abundant caution, we clarify that this
    compensation shall not come in the way of the petitioner, should
    he choose to pursue any other proceedings which are available in
    law for compensation for the demolition and for the taking over of
    property without the authority of law.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                           2361

                           In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash


33. The Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh shall,
    after conducting the enquiry, take suitable action including penal
    measures to ensure accountability of individual officials who have
    acted in violation of law. The implementation of these directions shall
    be initiated no later than within a period of one month from the date
    of this order. Disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within four
    months of initiation.
34. The Registrar (Judicial) shall circulate a copy of this judgment to
    the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories to ensure
    compliance with the directions which have been issued in regard
    to the procedure to be followed for the purpose of road widening
    in general.
35. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
36. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.


     Result of the case: Writ Petition disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Niti Richhariya, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)