Jharkhand HC Orders State To Pay Rs 5 Lakhs Compensation For Illegal Demolition Of Shops And Additional Rs 25,000..
🏛️ Context: Illegal Demolition of Shops and Compensation
When government authorities or agencies demolish property such as shops without proper legal authority or due procedure, such an act is considered illegal and a violation of the owners' fundamental rights, including the right to property and livelihood.
In such cases, courts can order the State to pay compensation to the victims for the loss suffered due to illegal or wrongful demolition.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles Involved
1. Right to Livelihood and Property
Though Article 300A of the Indian Constitution guarantees protection against deprivation of property except by authority of law, livelihood is also considered a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Illegal demolition of shops directly affects both property rights and livelihood.
2. Doctrine of Compensation
When property is taken or destroyed by the State without following due process, the State is liable to compensate the affected parties.
The principle of “compensation as a part of justice” is well-established.
3. State’s Obligation and Accountability
The State cannot act arbitrarily and demolish property without following legal procedures.
If demolition is illegal, the State must make good the loss by paying compensation.
📝 Typical Judicial Reasoning
When courts hear petitions about illegal demolition, they look at:
Whether the demolition was done following due process of law.
If notice was given and the affected persons had opportunity to be heard.
Whether the demolition was necessary and justified.
The extent of loss suffered by the shop owners.
The conduct of State agencies, including whether they acted malafide or negligently.
If demolition is found illegal, courts direct the State to pay compensation, sometimes also ordering rehabilitation or restoration of the demolished property where possible.
🏛️ Jharkhand HC Order: Rs 5 Lakhs + Rs 25,000
The High Court, after finding demolition illegal, ordered a substantial compensation of Rs 5 lakhs for loss of property and livelihood.
Additionally, Rs 25,000 was awarded, which might be towards costs or litigation expenses.
⚖️ Relevant Case Laws Illustrating These Principles
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1966 SC 1754
Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is a part of the right to life under Article 21.
Arbitrary demolition affecting livelihood without due process is unconstitutional.
2. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCC (3) 545
Supreme Court ruled that eviction of pavement dwellers without alternative accommodation violates right to life.
The principle extends to demolition impacting livelihood.
3. Lachhman Dass v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 1762
The court held that when property is taken by the government without following due process, compensation is mandatory.
4. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386
Illegal action of demolition without following the principles of natural justice attracts compensation.
5. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664
The Court observed the State must provide fair and just compensation when people's rights are affected by government action.
🧩 Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Issue | Illegal demolition of shops by State agencies |
| Violation | Right to property, livelihood, and due process |
| Court’s finding | Demolition done without legal authority and procedure |
| Relief granted | Rs 5 lakhs as compensation for loss |
| Rs 25,000 towards costs or additional damages | |
| Legal basis | Articles 21 and 300A of Constitution, case law on compensation and livelihood rights |
| Principle emphasized | State cannot act arbitrarily; must compensate unlawful loss |
🔚 Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court’s order exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to protect citizens’ rights against arbitrary state action. The State’s liability to compensate for illegal demolition is grounded in the principles of justice, fair play, and constitutional guarantees.
RELATED Blog
0 comments