ALLAHABAD| 27TH JUNE 2025 – The Allahabad High Court recently came down strongly on executive officers in the Uttar Pradesh police and civil administration, observing that they appear to derive “a kind of pride” from disobeying judicial orders. The remarks were made in the case titled Smt. Chhama vs State of UP and 3 Others, which involved the alleged illegal demolition of a home in Baghpat district despite a High Court stay order.
“Pride in Flouting Judicial Orders”: High Court Criticizes Administrative Culture
Justice JJ Munir, hearing the matter, made scathing observations about the conduct of the authorities:
“There seems to have come about a culture amongst the Executive Officers of the State, particularly, those in the Police and Civil administration to find a kind of pride in flouting judicial orders. It seems to give them a sense of achievement, rather than make them feel the guilt of being offenders. This matter cannot be taken lightly. It is well settled that any action done, whatever be its nature in violation of a judicial order, is a nullity.”
DEMOLITION CARRIED OUT DESPITE HIGH COURT STAY ORDER
The case stemmed from an alleged illegal demolition of a house located in Harijan Abadi, carried out even though a stay order had been issued by the High Court. Justice Munir emphasized the severity of the physical nature of a demolition, stating:
“The restitution would be by reconstruction of the demolished building. The building here was constructed in the Harijan abadi. It was not a construction in some kind of a public utility land, like a pond, a khalihan or a land submerged under water. Therefore, in our opinion, this might be a case, where restitution ought be ordered, requiring the State to reconstruct.”
TIMELINE OF EVENTS LEADING TO CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
In July 2024, an eviction order was passed against the petitioner, Smt. Chhama.
The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed in February 2025, following which she approached the High Court in March 2025.
Meanwhile, a PIL was filed seeking removal of the same structure as an alleged encroachment.
On May 5, 2025, the High Court directed the Baghpat Collector to clarify if any interim order existed and if not, to explain why eviction was not carried out.
The petitioner then mentioned her pending plea before the Court, and an interim stay was granted, stating the structure should not be demolished and no recovery made.
Both the PIL and the petitioner’s case were eventually ordered to be listed before the same Bench.
Despite the stay, the structure was demolished, prompting the petitioner to file a contempt plea. Due to roster limitations, the Court treated it as a “plea for wrongdoer” and not formal contempt.
AUTHORITIES HAD KNOWLEDGE OF STAY ORDER, SAYS COURT
Photographic evidence and procedural facts indicated the authorities proceeded with the demolition despite knowledge of the court’s order:
“An order of the Court once passed in the presence of the learned Standing Counsel representing the Authorities is deemed to be communicated as soon as it is made. The respondents are all authorities of the State represented by the learned Standing Counsel, and, therefore, their presence in Court is always there. They have notice of all the orders passed by this Court through the learned Standing Counsel.”
On the issue of delayed online upload of the order, the Court stressed that mere knowledge of an interim relief is sufficient to demand caution:
“Even if there is a delay in uploading of the order and it has been passed in the presence of the learned Standing Counsel, and, the petitioner says that the High Court has passed a stay order, it is the duty of the Authorities to lay their hands back off something as drastic as demolition, until such time that the fact of a stay order being passed by this Court is verified.
Upon hearing and an intimation of fact that this Court has passed a stay order, the Authorities should have immediately gone on the cautious mode and ascertained the said fact before proceeding further. Here, the photographs show that the order was already there, as the records show and well within the knowledge of the respondent-authorities and yet they went ahead with the demolition.”
HIGH COURT ISSUES NOTICE: STATE MAY HAVE TO RECONSTRUCT THE HOUSE
The Court issued notice to the following officials:
Collector, District Baghpat
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District Baghpat
Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Baghpat
Each of them is required to file a personal affidavit by July 7, explaining why the demolished structure should not be reconstructed and restored by the State at its own expense.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
For the Petitioner (Smt. Chhama): Advocate Vikrant Rana
