Supreme Court of India
ZULFIQUAR HAIDER & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 480
- Decided
- 31 March 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
The demolition was illegal because the PDA failed to effect proper service of the show‑cause notice and demolition order, thereby denying the appellants a reasonable opportunity to show cause and violating their Article 21 right to shelter.
Summary
The appellants' residential buildings in Prayagraj were demolished by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The PDA issued a show‑cause notice on 18 December 2020 but merely affixed it without making genuine attempts at personal service or sending it by registered post, and the demolition order dated 8 January 2021 was likewise served only by affixing. The Supreme Court held that such service did not satisfy the statutory requirement of giving the owners a reasonable opportunity to show cause and thus violated the appellants’ right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on Section 43 of the 1973 Act and the Court’s earlier decision in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, the Court emphasized the need for proper personal service, registration, and a minimum 15‑day period to file an appeal. Consequently, the demolition was declared illegal, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the PDA was directed to pay Rs 10 lakhs to each appellant as costs. The Court also ordered the PDA to comply with the earlier demolition‑direction guidelines and to provide copies of the demolition order to the appellants.
Issues considered
- Whether the demolition of the appellants' residential structures by the PDA under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was lawful given the manner of service of the show‑cause notice and demolition order.
- Whether the service of notice complied with the requirements of Section 43 of the 1973 Act and the principles laid down in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.
- Whether the demolition violated the appellants' constitutional right to shelter under Article 21.
- Whether the appellants were denied the statutory right to appeal under Section 27(2) due to improper service.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 21
- Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973s. 27, s. 43
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the demolition of the appellants’ residential premises/ buildings by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) purportedly done under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was illegal. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban – ss.27, 43 – Order of demolition of building – Services of notices, etc. – Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to shelter – Residential structures of the appellants demolished purportedly u/s.27 – Whether the demolition was illegal: Held: Yes
Subjects
Section 27 Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973Section 43 Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973Demolition of residential structuresPrayagraj Development AuthorityBulldozer justiceShow‑cause noticeDemolition orderService by affixingPersonal serviceService by registered postRight to shelterArticle 21 Constitution of IndiaDue process of lawRule of lawInhuman and illegal action of demolitionPrinciples of natural justiceOpportunity to avail remedy of appeal
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 205 : 2025 INSC 480
Zulfiquar Haider & Anr.
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4590 of 2025)
01 April 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the demolition of the appellants’ residential premises/
buildings by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) purportedly
done under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 was illegal.
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 –
ss.27, 43 – Order of demolition of building – Services of
notices, etc. – Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to
shelter – Residential structures of the appellants demolished
purportedly u/s.27 – Whether the demolition was illegal:
Held: Yes – Demolition action is illegal and arbitrary violating
the appellants’ right to shelter guaranteed by Art. 21 – Before a
structure is demolished it is the duty of the officers of the PDA
that every possible effort be made to effect a proper service of
the show-cause notice – Repeated efforts have to be made to
effect personal service – Only if those efforts fail, can the other
two options of affixing and of sending by registered post be
resorted to – Considering the drastic consequences provided in
s.27, recourse should usually be taken to both modes – 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 u/s.27(2) – In present case,
no efforts were made to make the personal service of the show
cause notice or sending it by registered post – The same is the
case with the demolition order dated 08.01.2021 – 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
01.03.2021, was sent by the registered post, which was served
upon the appellants on Saturday, 06.03.2021 – Within 24 hours
* Author
206 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the service of the said communication, the structures were
brazenly demolished on a Sunday – This deprived the appellants
of their opportunity to avail of the remedy of appeal under sub-
Section (2) of s.27– Residential structures of citizens cannot
be demolished in such a summary manner without following
the principles of natural justice – Impugned order of High Court
set aside – Costs of Rs.10,00,000/- imposed on PDA to be
paid in each appeal to the appellants with interest as directed.
[Paras 9, 12-14, 17]
Words and Phrases – Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 – s.43(1)(d)(ii) – “if such person cannot
be found” – Interpretation:
Held: Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of s.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)
(ii) 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. [Para 9]
Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to shelter – Violation
of, direction to PDA:
Held: Right to shelter is an integral part of Art. 21 – 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 a summary manner
without following the principles of natural justice – This is a case
of bulldozer justice – PDA to scrupulously follow the directions
in the case of in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of
structures. [Paras 12, 14, 17]
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973;
Constitution of India.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 207
Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
List of Keywords
Section 27 and 43 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973; Demolition of residential structures; Prayagraj Development
Authority; Bulldozer justice; Show-cause notice; Demolition order;
Service by affixing; Personal service; Service by registered post;
Service of notice; Proper service of the show-cause notice; “if
such person cannot be found”; Right to shelter; Article 21 of the
Constitution of India; Due process of law; Rule of law; Inhuman
and illegal action of demolition; Demolition in a summary manner;
Principles of natural justice; Opportunity to avail remedy of appeal.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4590 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in WC No. 9355 of 2021
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 4591, 4592, 4593 and 4594 of 2025.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Atif
Suhrawardy, Syed Mehdi Imam, Mrs. Shamama Anis, Tabrez
Ahmad, Pankaj Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondents:
R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,
Ruchir Ranjan Rai, A.S.Gs., Yatindra Singh, Shyan Divan, Sr. Advs.,
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Vibhav
Mishra, Shaurya R Rai, Parmanand Gaur, Ms. Megha Gaur.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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
208 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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:
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 209
Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
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 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
210 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
7. 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.
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
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 211
Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
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)
8. 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
212 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 213
Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(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)
9. 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
214 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
10. 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.
11. 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 215
Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
216 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
16. 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.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 27 Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973"Sign in to search