The High Court of Telangana has reaffirmed that state authorities cannot proceed with demolition of private property without adhering to the procedural safeguards mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution. This order, issued in response to an imminent threat of demolition, underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing constitutional protections against arbitrary state action, even where the property is situated on government-owned land.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, brothers Biharilal Yadav and S. Vohanlal Yadav, are longstanding tenants of a property bearing H.No.14-7-95 at Muslimjung Bridge, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, measuring 386 square yards. The property is currently used as a veterinary hospital under the Endowments Department. Despite their continuous occupation for decades, the respondents - comprising the State of Telangana, Endowments Department, GHMC, and Police - threatened demolition without notice or legal procedure.
Procedural History
- 1998: Petitioners filed W.P. No.20306/1998 seeking protection from eviction; the Court issued an order on 07.12.2000 directing that no eviction occur except in accordance with law.
- 2007: Another writ (W.P. No.14102 & 17911/2007) was filed by the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, seeking removal of encroachments; the Court directed the Endowments Department to follow due process before any action.
- 2025: The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, wrote to the Commissioner seeking lease extension for the petitioners for 11 years (2025 - 2036) at Rs.72,000/month, with rent escalation every three years.
- 2025: The Additional Commissioner and Director (FAC), Endowments Department, recommended lease extension to the Principal Secretary, but the matter remains pending.
- January 2026: Petitioners filed W.P. No.2325/2026 alleging imminent demolition without notice, violating Article 21, 14, and 300A.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from demolishing the property without due process, and an interim injunction pending final disposal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution permits state authorities to demolish private property without prior notice, hearing, or adherence to the procedure established by law, particularly when the property is held under a long-standing tenancy and a lease extension request is pending.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri C.H. Jayakrishna, counsel for the petitioners, relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to argue that due process under Article 21 encompasses substantive fairness and procedural safeguards. He emphasized that the 2000 order in W.P. No.20306/1998 had attained finality and barred any eviction without legal procedure. He further cited the pending lease extension request and the petitioners’ decades-long occupation as evidence of legitimate expectation.
For the Respondent
The Government Pleader for Endowments acknowledged the 2000 order but contended that the property was government land and the petitioners were merely tenants without title. The GHMC counsel argued that encroachments on public land must be removed, citing municipal bylaws. However, none of the respondents produced evidence of a formal demolition notice, hearing, or statutory compliance.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the binding nature of its own prior orders and the principle that due process is non-negotiable under Article 21, even for properties on government land. It noted that the 2000 order in W.P. No.20306/1998 was not merely advisory but a final directive that had not been vacated or modified. The Court further observed that the lease extension request, though pending, created a legitimate expectation that could not be disregarded by abrupt action.
"The petitioners have been in continuous possession for decades, and the State has not only acquiesced but also entertained their request for lease renewal. To now proceed with demolition without notice or hearing would be a clear violation of the procedure established by law."
The Court distinguished State of U.P. v. Mohd. Noor and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, affirming that the right to livelihood and shelter under Article 21 extends to lawful occupants, even without formal title. It rejected the argument that municipal bylaws override constitutional mandates, holding that statutory powers must be exercised within the framework of fundamental rights.
The Court also noted the absence of any record showing compliance with Section 14 of the Municipal Corporations Act or any other statutory notice requirement, rendering the threat of demolition procedurally defective.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that no demolition can proceed without due process of law, and directed the respondents to refrain from interfering with the property for two weeks to allow time for the pending lease extension to be considered. The matter was listed for further hearing on 09.02.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Due Process Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must challenge any demolition notice that lacks prior notice, opportunity to be heard, or written order.
- Courts will enforce prior judicial directives even if the property is government-owned.
- The mere fact of state ownership does not extinguish the occupant’s right to procedural fairness.
Legitimate Expectation Protects Long-Term Occupants
- Tenants with decades of continuous possession, even without title, may invoke legitimate expectation under Article 21.
- Pending administrative approvals (e.g., lease renewals) create a legal shield against arbitrary action.
- Authorities cannot bypass pending applications by resorting to force or summary action.
Municipal Bylaws Cannot Override Constitutional Rights
- Municipal corporations cannot invoke bylaws to justify demolition if constitutional rights are violated.
- Any action under municipal law must comply with Article 21 and Article 14.
- Courts will strike down actions that use local laws as a pretext for violating fundamental rights.
