LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Zulfiqar Haider v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 480Decided 1 Apr 2025
C.A. No.-004590-004590 - 2025 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.6466 of 2021, along with four connected appeals)
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

The Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) issued a show-cause notice to the appellants on 18 December 2020 alleging unauthorised construction, and merely pasted it on the property rather than making genuine efforts at personal service. A demolition order followed on 8 January 2021, similarly "served" only by affixing, and a further communication was sent by registered post on 1 March 2021, received by the appellants on Saturday 6 March 2021. Within 24 hours of that service, on a Sunday, the PDA demolished the appellants' residential structures using bulldozers, without giving them the 15 days needed to file a statutory appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held the demolition entirely illegal, finding that the PDA never made genuine, repeated attempts at personal service as required under Section 43 of the 1973 Act before resorting to affixing a notice, and that the appellants were denied the mandatory opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2) before their homes were bulldozed. The Court held that the right to shelter is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and can only be taken away by due process, and criticised the PDA's conduct as "bulldozer justice" carried out with insensitivity and in violation of the rule of law. It set aside the High Court's order, directed the PDA to strictly follow the Supreme Court's earlier general directions on demolitions (In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures), and ordered the PDA to pay Rs. 10 lakh in costs to the appellants in each case, while leaving them free to pursue further proceedings to establish their property rights and claim compensation.

Lesson Learnt

A demolition of any residential structure must be preceded by proper notice (genuine, repeated attempts at personal service, not just pasting a notice on the door) and the owner must be given the full statutory time (at least 15 days) to appeal before any demolition; skipping these safeguards violates the constitutional right to shelter and can expose the authority to heavy costs.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case