The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government for an "illegal" demolition in 2019 while issuing directions to all states and union territories (UT) on the procedure to be followed during road widening and removal of encroachments.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also directed the UP government to pay Rs 25 lakh compensation to the man whose house was razed in 2019 for a road widening project.

"You can't come with bulldozers and demolish the constructions overnight. You don't give the family, time to vacate. What about the household articles inside the house?" the bench asked the counsel representing the UP government.

Further, the apex court directed the UP chief secretary to conduct an inquiry into the matter pertaining to a house in Maharajganj district and take suitable action.

The bench elaborated on the steps that a state or its instrumentality must undertake before taking action in pursuance to a road-widening project.

The top court accordingly asked the states to ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of records or maps and carry out a survey, which would allow ascertaining the encroachments, if any, on the road.

In case an encroachment was found, the top court said, the state must issue a notice to the encroacher to remove it and if the correctness and validity of the notice was objected to, the state would issue a "speaking order" keeping in mind the principles of natural justice.

In a scenario of the objection being rejected, a reasonable notice would be furnished to the person against whom the adverse action was proposed, to remove the encroachment, it added.

The bench further underlined if the person concerned failed to comply with it, the competent authority would take steps to remove the encroachment unless restrained by an order of the competent authority or the court.

In a case where the existing width of the road, including the state land adjoining it, was not sufficient to accommodate the road widening, the state would take steps to acquire its land in accordance with law before undertaking the exercise.

While hearing the matter of the petitioner, represented by senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar and advocate Shubham Kulshreshtha, the court had remarked, "... It is clear that the demolition was completely high-handed and without the authority of law."

The bench, therefore, concluded that the "entire process" followed during the demotion of the house in 2019 was "high-handed".

During the hearing, the bench was informed about 123 demolitions in the area concerned.

It also came on top court's record that the encroachment in question was of 3.7 square metre.

"But how can you start demolishing people's houses like that? Isn't this complete lawlessness?" it asked.

The top court further remarked, "You just walk in and demolish somebody's house. No notice, nothing."              Observing that somebody's property was destroyed without any demarcation or without any acquisition, the bench enquired with the state's counsel on the due process followed by the state authorities before taking such an action.

"You say you have only issued 'munadi', which is a beat of the drum," it observed, adding that no notice was issued to the individual before the house was razed, according to court records.

The top court further enquired with the state counsel about the basis on which the construction was held to be unauthorised.

When the state's counsel informed the bench about the road-widening project, the bench said, "Widening was just as excuse. It does not seem to be a genuine reason for undertaking this entire exercise."

It noted, "You can't just on the beat of a drum tell someone that vacate the house and we are here to demolish."

The top court's direction to the UP chief secretary for the inquiry would include the roles of the officers and contractors who perhaps were responsible for the illegal demolition.

The exercise could also include disciplinary action against any officer if found involved in the demolition of not only the petitioner's house but also other similarly-placed properties that have met the same fate in the area.

Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the state was directed to take suitable action, including criminal in nature, to ensure accountability of individuals found in violation of the law.

"The state of Uttar Pradesh shall pay to the petitioner a compensation which we quantify at Rs 25 lakh," directed the bench, noting it would be of interim nature and not come in the way of the petitioner seeking other legal remedies for compensation.

Notably, the bench directed the registrar (judicial) to circulate a copy of its order to the chief secretaries of all states and UTs to ensure compliance with the directions issued over the procedure for the purpose of road widening.