‘We deserve compensation’: Why victim of UP ‘bulldozer raj’ wants the Supreme Court to do more

Last month, the Supreme Court called a halt to the demolition of properties of those accused of any crime – a policy used by several Bharatiya Janata Party state governments to punish anyone at will, especially Muslims. With the court poised to lay down guidelines for such demolitions, Scroll’s reporters went back to several victims of “bulldozer injustice” to document the toll of state action on their lives.

Javed Mohammad remembers staying up late into the night, more than two decades ago, to pour water on the bricks that made up the foundation of the house he was building. The more the water, the stronger the structure. The house was complete by 2005, and, over the next decade, Mohammad put his savings together and built another floor.

His home of eight rooms was spread over 200 square yards in Prayagraj’s Kareli locality, built on land gifted by Mohammad’s father-in-law.

It was not to last. In June 2022, bulldozers of the Prayagraj Development Authority rolled into the neighbourhood and demolished the house. The family was not at home: Mohammad had been whisked away to the city’s Naini jail a day before, and his wife and one of his daughters had been detained at the Civil Lines police station.

“It felt like a member of the family had passed away,” recalled Mohammad, 58, a former sales manager who doubles as a social activist.

Between April and June 2022, Amnesty International reported on 128 such demolitions in five states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party, affecting 617 people, mostly Muslim, either turning them homeless or leading to the loss of jobs. In all cases, the properties belonged to those accused of crimes. There are no provisions in Indian law that allow for such punitive demolitions.

In Uttar Pradesh, demolitions targeting Muslims and other marginalised groups have become a norm, with BJP supporters lionising Chief Minister Adityanath as “bulldozer baba”.

In September, the Supreme Court appeared to take a dim view of the state’s use of demolitions as punishment. “How can anybody’s house be demolished only because he is an accused?” Justice BR Gavai asked.

The court passed an interim order barring demolitions across the country without its permission, except those ordered by courts, or those against illegal encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines and water bodies. On October 1, the court said that it would lay down “pan-India guidelines” on demolitions.

The demolition

On June 10, 2022, Muslims in Prayagraj had held a protest against BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who had made derogatory comments about Prophet Muhammed on a news channel two weeks before.

Javed Mohammed did not participate in the protest, which was held 3 km from his home. Media reports said that the protestors torched a Pradeshik Armed Constabulary truck and threw stones at the police, leading to the arrest of 15 persons.

Before the demonstration, the police had sought the help of the activist and his daughter, Afreen Fatima, in ensuring that the protest was peaceful.

But later that day, Mohammad was arrested and charged with rioting, attempted murder and provisions of the National Security Act.

Mohammad spent 20 months in jail. He believes that he was targeted because of his association with the Samajwadi Party and with civil society groups like the People’s Union For Civil Liberties. In 2023, the police charged him under sections of the Gangster Act, but he was granted bail in all the cases by the Allahabad High Court, which said that the state’s case lacked material evidence.

The SC guidelines

Now back with his family in Prayagraj, living in a rented flat, Mohammad has followed the Supreme Court’s proceedings on illegal demolitions closely in the newspapers. He read about the court’s intent of laying down a due process before demolitions and giving the property owners an opportunity to be heard – and approves of it.

“The Supreme Court knows that local authorities mislead the public in these matters,” he said. “For one, they often backdate the notice.”

Mohammad would know. On the night of June 11, 2022, when he and his family members were in police custody, local authorities pasted a notice on his old home.

The notice, dated June 10, addressed him as the owner of the property and told him to vacate the house before the demolition. No one was home to receive the notice, Mohammad told Scroll, and pointed out that the actual owner of the property is his wife, Parveena Fatima.

The demolition began at 11 am on June 12. By 3 pm, the house was reduced to rubble. The 58-year-old watched it on a television inside the hospital at the Naini jail, where he had been admitted for high blood pressure.

While hearing the illegal demolitions case on October 1, 2024, Justice Gavai said that there should be a “valid service” of notices before demolition, including a digital record of the notice. “There has to be a notice served by a registered post AD [acknowledgement due],” he noted. “This pasting of notice business would go.”

Gavai also said that the owner should get “a proper opportunity of hearing”. He added: “We are going to make it clear that merely because somebody is an accused or convict, cannot be a ground for demolition…unless there is violation of any of the municipal laws or panchayat laws…”

This sounds reasonable but most illegal demolitions in recent years are executed over unrelated matters.

Mohammad’s home, for instance, was demolished only after he was accused of taking part in violence during a protest. The local authorities defended their action, alleging that the structure violated provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

The activist moved Allahabad High Court in 2022 over the demolition, demanding compensation for his loss. “The matter has hardly moved,” he said. “It seems like the high court is under pressure from the state government.”

The Supreme Court’s directives make Mohammad hopeful, but he believes they came too late. “The guidelines will deal with future demolitions and they should allow for demolition of illegal structures on government land,” he said. “But they should also provide remedy for what happened in the past. Cases like mine should be investigated. We deserve compensation.”