Bulldozer Justice Simply Unnacceptable – Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their homes.

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Bulldozer Justice Simply...

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while adjudicating a Suo Moto Writ Petition captioned “In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash, 2024 INSC 863”(registered on the basis of a letter by a senior journalist) held that the state must follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures and issued a slew of directions to be followed before pursuing a road widening project. The demolition of the petitioner’s ancestral house in the present case was done without giving any proper notice and only through the public announcement of drum-beating. The Hon’ble Court observed that such conduct of the state authorities was “completely high-handed and without the authority of law” which warranted an interim punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to the petitioner while also granting him liberty to exercise other legal remedies for compensation.The Hon’ble Court came down heavily upon the State by holding that Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law and will reduce the constitutional right to property under Article 300A to a dead letter.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

S.74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It’s Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty : SC

In Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3334/2023), the Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of earnest money in property transactions is valid if reasonable and does not fall under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, unless it forms part of the consideration. The Read more »

Accused Has A Right To Undergo Voluntary Narco-Analysis Test At An Appropriate Stage

In Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 810, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while hearing a criminal appeal, sharply criticised the Bihar High Court for permitting involuntary narco-analysis tests and conducting a roving inquiry at the bail stage. The case arose when the Appellant, arrested along with co-accused for Read more »

Rights In Rem Are Not Arbitrable – Supreme Court

In Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011), the Supreme Court of India ruled that disputes involving the enforcement of mortgage rights are non-arbitrable because they pertain to rights in rem—public rights affecting immovable property—rather than rights in personam, which are private and suitable for arbitration. Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.