No Demolition Of Accused's Property For Two Years Following FIR To Check 'Retributive' Action: Allahabad High Court

"No action may be taken to demolish his house for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR and during the hiatus of two years, as the immediate action, rather than to reclaim State land, is to satiate the presumable public anger immediately following the offence." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 20, 2026, held that the State cannot demolish the dwelling place of an accused person for a period of two years from the date of registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

A bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that rushing to demolish properties under the garb of municipal violations immediately after an offence is a "retributive exercise of executive discretion" meant to satiate public bloodlust, which is Constitutionally impermissible.

The petitioners approached the High Court apprehending the demolition of their residential and commercial properties by mechanical means following the registration of a criminal case against their relative. The FIR was lodged against the relative under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act, and the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. Following the FIR, the municipal and forest authorities allegedly sealed the petitioners' commercial establishments and issued notices targeting their residence.

The primary question before the court was whether steps taken to demolish a structure immediately following the commission of an offence constitute a colourable and malicious exercise of executive discretion. The court was also called upon to determine how it should balance the statutory authority of the State to demolish an illegal structure with a citizen's fundamental right to life, livelihood, and shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Demolition As Retribution Is Vitiated By Malice In Law

The bench observed that the continuation of bulldozer actions compelled it to carve out a new species of malice in law termed the "Retributive Exercise of Executive Discretion". The court noted that by demolishing the house of a person accused of an offence, the State acts not to enforce municipal laws but to arbitrarily punish the accused. The court stated that where a state action is motivated by purposes other than the objects and reasons of municipal laws, it is reasonable to infer malice on the part of the State.

"In bulldozing the house of a person accused of an offence, the State is not acting with the avowed aims of enforcing the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the municipal laws but to punish the accused and his entire family staying in that house, while projecting the action as one of removing an illegal construction."

Two-Year Hiatus Mandatory From Date Of FIR

Addressing the core issue of immediate demolitions, the court directed a blanket stay on such punitive actions for two years post-FIR. The bench ruled that rushing to bring down the dwelling place of an accused under the guise of building code violations is entirely impermissible. The court unequivocally declared that no demolition action may be taken for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR. The bench reasoned that during this hiatus, the immediate public anger would dissipate, and the State might no longer feel the necessity to destroy the property merely to appease society.

Strict Compliance With Supreme Court Guidelines

Following the completion of the two-year embargo, the court clarified that the State could examine the property violations strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court's mandate in the In re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (Bulldozer case). The final order of demolition must mandatorily reflect the reasons why compounding or regularising the deviations is not possible. The court warned that demolishing a structure without exploring the options to compound the illegality would render the State in gross contempt of the Supreme Court's orders.

Exception Carved Out For Genuine Public Purpose

The court provided a limited exception to the two-year embargo if the removal of the structure is strictly necessary for reclaiming land for a broader public purpose. However, the bench cautioned that such action cannot be restricted to the house of the accused alone. If the demolition is genuinely for a public purpose, uniformly applied to other similarly situated illegal structures in the vicinity, the two-year hiatus shall not be binding, provided the State strictly complies with the procedural directions of the Supreme Court.

Simultaneous Action Ordered Against Corrupt Municipal Officers

To address the root cause of illegal constructions, the court directed that any notice issued for building norm violations would only be valid if simultaneous proceedings are initiated against the erring municipal officers. The bench observed that the collective absence of integrity in municipal authorities enables individuals to construct non-compliant houses. The court mandated that disciplinary action and proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, must be initiated against complicit officers and brought to a logical end within six months.

The High Court ultimately quashed the demolition proceedings against the petitioners' residence and lodge, holding them to be hit by the retributive exercise of executive discretion. The court directed that no demolition proceedings shall be initiated against these structures for two years from the date of the FIR, while allowing the distinct proceedings under the Forest Act regarding the sawmill to continue unaffected.

Date of Decision: 20 July 2026