JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order made on 20/2/1991 by the Gujarat High court in Special Civil Application No. 5351 of 1982.

(3) THE admitted facts are that 29 persons had filed the writ petition in the High court. They are pavement-dwellers in unauthorised occupation of footpaths of the Rakhial Road in Ahmedabad which is a main road. They have constructed huts thereon. When the Corporation sought to remove their encroachments on 10/12/1982, they approached the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High court granted interim stay of removal of the encroachment. By the impugned judgment, the High court directed the Municipal Corporation not to remove their huts until suitable accommodation was provided to them. The High court also further held that before removing the unauthorised encroachments the procedure of hearing, consistent with the principles of natural justice should be followed.

(4) WE requested Shri Dushyant Dave, the learned Senior Counsel of the Bar to assist the court as amicus curiae and Smt K. Sharda Devi has been assigned as Legal Aid counsel to argue on the behalf of the respondents since they are not appearing either in person or through counsel. By order dated 11/9/1995, this court directed the appellant thus:

"WE think that the Municipal Corporation should frame a scheme to accommodate them at the alternative places so that the hutmen can shift their residence to the places of accommodation provided by the Corporation to have permanent residence. Corporation is accordingly directed to frame a scheme and place before this court within two months from today."

(5) PURSUANT thereto, a scheme has been framed and placed before this court. It would appear that only 10 persons out of original petitioners in the High court whose names have been mentioned in the supplementary affidavit are residing there; of them Nurmahommad Samsuddin and Hakimuddin Karimuddin have converted their huts into commercial units run on the pavement. This road is 80 feet wide with 10 and 8 feet wide footpaths on two sides of the road. At present 56 persons, obviously including 10 original encroachers are in occupation of hutments erected on the footpaths and whereabouts of 19 original petitioners who have left the area in consideration of money they have accepted, are not known. In their place, others have occupied the huts by making payments.

(6) SHRI Dushyant Dave has also further submitted proposals as an alternative to the Scheme. Having heard the counsel on both sides, we reserved the case for consideration. At the outset, we express our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Dushyant Dave and also for the fair arguments advanced by Shri Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation.

(7) THE questions for consideration are: (1 Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment from the encroachments of pavements of the roads and whether the principle of natural justice, viz., audi alteram partem requires to be followed and, if so, what is its scope and content? (2 Whether the appellant is under an obligation to provide permanent residence to the hutment-dwellers and, if so, what would be the parameters in that behalf? The questions are dealt with later. On the first question, S. 63(i)19 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (as applicable to Gujarat) or Section 231 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (BPMC Act) empowers the Commissioner to remove any wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth or other structure or fixture, permanent or moveable, which shall be erected or set up in or upon any street or upon or over any open channel, drain, well or tank, contrary to the provisions of Ss. (1 of Section 312 after the same came into force in the city of Ahmedabad or in the super bazars after the Bombay Municipal (E