SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Bhikhaji Somaji Thakor Through Bhalabhai B Thakor – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 12516 of 2019
Decided On : 22-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bomi H Sethna
For the Respondent: Mr. Meet Thakkar, AGP, Mr. Anuj K Trivedi

Point of Law - Having been so sanctioned and become a part of the Act, same was not a subject-matter that could be gone into by this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Petitioners that they are residing with their families at Town Planning Scheme, for last more than 50 years - With a view to rehabilitate slum dwellers under Regulation for Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums, and under Chief Ministers Gujarat Rural Urban, local authorities had to identify slum pockets and start development and rehabilitate such slum dwellers - Under challenge is notice issued to petitioners by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - Reading notice would indicate that Final Plot is reserved for community hall - Alternative accommodation was made available to petitioners earlier at Vasna Shahwadi Aavas Yojna, thereafter, it was changed to Aavas near Jupiter Mill which was for administrative reasons suspended - Notice further indicates that hence now petitioners are offered alternative accommodation at TP, Final Plot, Rajiv Aavas Yojna and, thereafter asked to remain present to lodge their entitlement - It is in this context, prayers are so made.

Findings of the Court - Far as contention that earlier allotments were cancelled though were made at Vasna Shahwadi Aavas Yojna, it was changed to Aavas near Jupiter Mill, reading of order of Court would indicate that right would not have been suspended and in situ allotment was to be done to allottees of Final Plot respectively - Petitioners being encroachers could not therefore claim priority of being allotted accommodation by virtue of rehabilitation at place they are occupying land which they were without any right - I find no reason to interfere with action of Corporation in allotting alternative accommodation at place reflected in impugned notice.

Result - Petitions dismissed

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE, returnable forthwith. Mr. Meet M. Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule for respondent No.1, while Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, learned advocate waives service of Rule for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for hearing today.

3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

4. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

    “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities i.e. the respondent No.2 and 3 to construct and allot the residential premises in favour of the petitioners, in the premises where the petitioners are residing, instead of allotting them the premises in TP Scheme No.44 (Chandkheda), Final Plot No.224, Rajiv Gandhi Avas Yojna, on any reasonable conditions as may deem fit in the interest of justice;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order of Direction, directing the respondent authorities i.e. the respondent No.2 and 3 to provide an accommodation to the petitioners in the nearby area i.e. Prime Ministers Avas Yojna, Ramapir No Tekro (Section 5) Old Wadaj, Ahmedabad.”

5. The facts in brief are as under:

5.1. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residing with their families at Town Planning Scheme No.28 (Nava Wadaj), Final Plot No.536, near the Community Hall, Wadaj Circle, Ahmedabad for the last more than 50 years. With a view to rehabilitate the slum dwellers under the Regulation for the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Slums, 2010 and under Chief Ministers Gujarat Rural Urban, local authorities had to identify the slum pockets and start development and rehabilitate such slum dwellers. Under challenge is the notice dated 1.6.2019 issued to the petitioners by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Reading the notice would indicate that Final Plot No.536 of TP No.28 (Nava Wadaj) is reserved for community hall. Alternative accommodation was made available to the petitioners earlier at Vasna Shahwadi Aavas Yojna, thereafter, it was changed to Aavas near Jupiter Mill which was for administrative reasons suspended. The notice further indicates that hence now the petitioners are offered alternative accommodation at TP No.44 (Chandkheda), Final Plot No.224, Rajiv Aavas Yojna and, thereafter asked to remain present to lodge their entitlement. It is in this context, the prayers are so made.

6. Mr. Bomi H. Sethna, learned counsel for the petitioners would indicate that vide that vide a resolution dated 18.7.2013, it was incumbent upon the respondent – Corporation to allot residential premises in situ. It is submitted that it was a special policy framed for rehabilitating the slum dwellers. He would submit that initially the petitioners were offered accommodation at Vasna Shahwadi Aavas Yojna on 10.7.2014 which was subsequently cancelled. Thereafter, they were allotted accommodation on 9.5.2016 at Jupiter Mill, which allotment was cancelled on 25.2.2016. Now, by the impugned notice, they have been offered accommodation at Chandkheda, which is in violation of the in situ rehabilitation policy. He would further submit that at Ramapir Na Tekra close to the slums of the petitioners, there are 8,000 houses to be still constructed, which should be allotted to the petitioners. As far as the reservation made to the community hall is concerned, Mr. Sethna would invite the attention of the Court to the photograph on page No.125 to submit that a community hall already exists within the distance of half kilometer. Mr. Sethna would invite the atte

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top