( 1 ) THIS writ petition as also the connected writ petitions (Spl. C. A. Nos. 2251, 2255, 3172, 3185, 4041 and 4384 of 1999 and Spl. C. A. No. 4202 of 1995) have been filed as Public Interest Litigations by voluntary service-oriented organisations, namely. Peoples Union of Civil liberties, Shishu Milap, Samvad, Council of Social Justice and a few individuals for and on behalf of hutment dwellers. They seek directions for their resettlement and for payment of compensation to them for their forcible removal in violation of their constitutional and human right.

( 2 ) THE petitioners who have approached individually and for and on behalf of the hutment dwellers do not dispute that the land on which they were living in their huts were public properties, belonging to the State of Gujarat and within the control of either the Municipal Corporations, Urban Development Authorities or the Housing Boards at Ahmedabad and Vadodara.

( 3 ) ON behalf of hutment dwellers, it is complained by the petitioners, some of whom are affected individuals and other service organisations, that the State and the various public authorities possessed of muscle powers through police and bulldozers have ruthlessly crushed their hutments with their belongings. Thus, with the use of physical force, they have been evacuated from the lands on which they were living. A few of the hutment dwellers before us in this batch of petitions have approached this Court on apprehension of their evacuation in ruthless manner mentioned above. A few of the hutment dwellers, who have already been forcibly evacuated and their hutments removed, state that in the absence of any alternative site for living made available or permissible to them nearby the place of their humble occupation and working, they had no option but to squat near the same place from where they were evacuated.

( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with the cases separately in the facts and backgrounds of individual cases, it would be necessary to state the stand almost consistently taken by and on behalf of the public authorities, i. e. , the Municipal Corporations, revenue authorities of the State, Urban Development Authorities and Housing boards. It is stated that the hutment dwellers are occupying lands, such as reserved for proposed roads under the housing schemes, on the banks of rain water channel, on public roads and other objectionable sites. They cannot be allowed to remain there to the detriment of the general interest and convenience of other members of the society, who expect proper development of urban areas to ensure uncongested and unpolluted environment. On behalf of the public authorities, it is submitted that planned development of cities for inhabitants is the need of the society. Individual or collective rights of hutment dwellers will have to be sacrificed for planned urban development, which is in general public interest. It is submitted that the hutment dwellers were duly served with notices reasonably in advance to give them time and period to vacate the encroached lands with their families and belongings. It is only when after such notices the hutment dwellers refused to vacate or leave the encroached lands, that minimum required physical force was used, to evict them. Some of the public authorities have stated that the hutment dwellers living on public properties were duly identified on the basis of their names in the electoral rolls, ration cards and other public documents. Such identified hutment dwellers after their removal have been provided with alternative sites, but this procedure was followed only in respect of hutment dwellers or encroachers who were living on the land prior to 1976. On behalf of the public authorities, it is submitted that each and every encroacher of the land, where the encroachment is comparatively of recent origin, cannot be provided with alternative site to live, as it is not within the financial resources and capacity of the public bodies. It is c