Introduction:

In Savitri Sonkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [Writ C No. 11232 of 2025], the Allahabad High Court, speaking through Justice Alok Mathur, delivered a stern and constitutionally grounded judgment condemning arbitrary state action involving illegal demolition of private property and ex-parte mutation of revenue records. Passing the order during court vacations, the High Court not only quashed the illegal orders passed by the revenue authorities but also imposed exemplary costs of ₹20 lakhs on the State of Uttar Pradesh, holding that mere setting aside of illegal actions would not amount to complete justice. The case arose from the forcible demolition of the petitioner’s structure without prior notice, hearing, or compliance with binding Supreme Court guidelines. The Court treated the matter as a serious infringement of the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution, emphasizing that rule of law cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. The judgment stands as a powerful reminder that State authorities are trustees of power and not its absolute masters, and that abuse of authority, especially against vulnerable citizens, will invite strict judicial consequences.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, Savitri Sonkar, contended that the demolition of her structure on 24 March 2025 was carried out in a completely illegal, arbitrary, and high-handed manner, without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. She traced her lawful title to the property, beginning with Santdeen, in whose favour a declaration suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had been decreed. Following this decree, Santdeen’s name was duly mutated in the revenue records, and thereafter the land devolved upon his son and brother. The petitioner and her sister legally purchased the land in 2021, and their names were duly mutated by a valid order dated 24.02.2021. Despite this undisputed chain of title, the respondent authorities proceeded to demolish the structure allegedly on the basis of an order dated 10.02.2025 under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, which the petitioner was never served or informed about. It was argued that the mutation proceedings were initiated suo motu, behind the petitioner’s back, and the demolition was carried out in complete violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, which mandates prior notice, hearing, and due process before any demolition. The petitioner asserted that the State action amounted to a direct assault on her constitutional and statutory rights, warranting not only quashing of the impugned orders but also compensation for the irreparable loss caused.

On the other hand, the State of Uttar Pradesh, through its officials, attempted to justify the demolition by placing reliance on the order passed under the Revenue Code. However, when called upon by the Court to explain the legality of their actions, the respondents failed to demonstrate compliance with statutory procedure or constitutional safeguards. Personal affidavits were filed by the concerned officers, including the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli, but significantly, none of them offered a convincing explanation as to how jurisdiction was exercised or why the petitioner was denied notice and hearing. The State did not deny that demolition was carried out without prior intimation, nor could it rebut the allegation that Supreme Court directions were blatantly ignored. The Court found the State’s defense evasive, casual, and reflective of a complete disregard for citizens’ property rights.

Court’s Judgement:

After summoning and meticulously examining the original records and affidavits, the Allahabad High Court delivered a scathing verdict against the respondent authorities. Justice Alok Mathur held that none of the mandatory safeguards or judicial directions governing demolition of structures were followed, and the entire exercise was carried out clandestinely and behind the petitioner’s back. The Court noted that the authorities were fully aware of the earlier decree in favour of Santdeen and the subsequent valid mutations, yet deliberately failed to deal with these crucial facts while passing the impugned order. This omission, the Court held, clearly reflected mala fides, arbitrariness, and abuse of power.

The Court was particularly critical of the affidavit filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), observing that he neither justified the assumption of jurisdiction nor denied that the action was without authority of law. This, according to the Court, demonstrated a disturbing lack of understanding of legal duties among senior revenue officials. Holding that the petitioner’s right to property had been seriously infringed, the Court quashed the ex-parte mutation order as well as the demolition action.

However, the judgment did not stop at granting declaratory relief. Justice Mathur emphatically observed that mere setting aside of illegal orders would not constitute complete justice, especially when a citizen’s property has already been demolished. Recognizing the gravity of the harm caused, the Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹20 lakhs on the State of Uttar Pradesh, directing that possession of the land be immediately restored to the petitioner. Importantly, the Court also ordered the State to conduct an inquiry to identify the officers responsible for the illegal action and to recover the amount of costs from those erring officials, thereby ensuring personal accountability.

In a strongly worded concluding observation, the Court lamented that this was not merely a case of violation of rule of law, but one where even binding directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court were disobeyed with impunity. It observed that senior revenue officials appeared oblivious to the rights and duties entrusted to them, and emphasized the urgent need for the State to adequately train revenue officers, as they deal daily with sensitive property rights of rural citizens who are entitled to lawful, fair, and speedy justice. The writ petition was accordingly allowed in full.