In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash,2024

In This case Apex Court held that state authorities are obligated to follow due process before removing encroachments and what steps should be implemented to ensure fairness in road widening projects involving encroachments. In this judgment the Apex Court issues guidelines to the state govt. The facts are as follows: 

• The case arose from complaints regarding arbitrary encroachments and their removal for road widening projects. 
• Allegations of "bulldozer justice" were raised, questioning due process and the adherence to the rule of law. 
• Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Manoj Tibrewal Akash, highlighting violations of natural justice and unlawful demolitions. 
• Addressed the lack of procedural safeguards and arbitrary actions by State authorities. 
• Criticized practices that bypass the legal framework, equating them to "bulldozer justice." 

• Whether State authorities are obligated to follow due process before removing encroachments. 
• What steps should be implemented to ensure fairness in road widening projects involving encroachments. 

• Steps for State Authorities:
  • Authorities must follow the prescribed legal procedures and adhere to principles of natural justice before clearing encroachments.
  • A detailed framework was laid out to standardize the approach across States/Union Territories.
  • Copies of the judgment were directed to be circulated for uniform implementation.
• Condemnation of Arbitrary Actions:
  • The Court made strong remarks against "bulldozer justice," terming it "unacceptable under the rule of law." 
  • Emphasized the importance of protecting fundamental rights while maintaining public order. 
• Guidelines Laid Down by the Supreme Court in the Judgment 
  • Survey/Demarcation to Identify Encroachments-A proper survey must be carried out to identify encroachments, comparing them with the existing road width as per the official records. 
  • Issuance of Notice to Encroachers-If encroachments are identified, the concerned encroachers should be issued formal notice. 
  • Decision on Objections-If encroachers raise objections, the authorities must respond with a speaking order in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 
  • Notice Before Action-In case the objection is rejected, the encroacher should be given a reasonable notice before any adverse action is taken to remove the encroachment. 
  • Action on Failure to Remove Encroachment-If the encroacher fails to remove the encroachment within the given time, the competent authority may take necessary steps, unless restrained by the court. 
  • Land Acquisition for Road Widening -If the current road width, including adjacent land, is insufficient for widening, the state must acquire the necessary land as per the law before proceeding with road widening. 
  • Ascertainment of Existing Road Width-Authorities must refer to records/maps to determine the current width of the road. 

• Rule of Law:
  • The judgment reinforces the supremacy of the rule of law and the necessity of procedural safeguards in administrative actions.
• Uniformity in Approach:
  • By laying down steps for encroachment removal, the Court aimed to eliminate inconsistencies and arbitrary practices across jurisdictions.
• Humanitarian Perspective:
  • Recognized the socio-economic impact of demolitions and emphasized the need for humane considerations. 
• Impact: 
  • The judgment sets a significant precedent for urban development projects, ensuring transparency, accountability, and protection of individual rights.