The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government for demolishing an individual's house without following legal procedures.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the demolition was 'high handed' and without authority of law.

"How can you just enter someone's home and demolish it without following the course of law or serving notice," the Bench demanded.

Hence, it ordered the UP government to pay ₹25 lakh as punitive compensation and further directed the State to initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible.

The order has to be enforced within a month, the Court made it clear.

"The demolition was carried out without any notice or disclosure to the occupiers of the basis of the demarcation or the extent of demolition to be carried out. It is clear demolition was high handed and without the authority of law. The petitioner states the demolition was only because the petitioner had flagged irregularities in road construction in newspaper report. Such action by the State cannot be countenanced and when dealing with private property, law has to be followed," the Court said.

As per the petitioner, his house was demolished without any prior notice or explanation for allegedly encroaching a highway.

Notably, the petitioner claimed that the demolition was a retaliatory measure after he informed the media about alleged irregularities in a road construction project.

The Court dismissed the UP government's request for an adjournment, insisting that the matter needs to be promptly addressed since all legal documents had already been submitted.

"We are not inclined to accept the request of the State of UP to adjourn the proceedings since pleadings are completed and the court is required to evaluate the materials placed before to decide legality of action," it said.

The State, according to the Court, could not show the original width of the highway, the extent of any encroachment or proof that any land acquisition had been undertaken before initiating the demolition.

Further, an inquiry report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed that the demolition was far more extensive than the supposed encroachment.

The Court underlined that while carrying out road widening, the State must ascertain existing width of the road, issue formal notices if any encroachments are found, and give residents the opportunity to raise objections.

Any decision against an objection must come in the form of a reasoned order with sufficient time allowed for residents to vacate, the Bench underscored.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the entire action by UP government was of high handedness and therefore, it ordered punitive compensation and directed the Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry into the entire matter.

"This will include disciplinary action against any officer who demolished not only house of petitioner but anybody else who met the same fate in the area," it added.

The Court also ordered all States to adhere to the following while carrying out widening of roads:

While carrying road widening, States must ascertain:

- Existing width of road;

- If encroachment is found, notice has to be issued to remove the encroachment;

- If objection is raised, then a decision on objection should be rendered by way of a speaking order in compliance with natural justice principles;

If rejected, then reasonable time should be given to (the encroacher) to remove encroachment.

The registrar judicial shall circulate a copy of this judgment to all states to comply with procedure to be followed for the purposes of road widening, the Court directed.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar and advocate Shubham Kulshreshtha appeared for the petitioner.