JUDGMENT :

Alpesh Y. Kogje, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking directions to hold and declare the decision to beautify the river bank of Kansara River in Bhavnagar City, as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and declare the same as void ab initio, on the ground that the hutment dwellers be provided with alternative accommodation. The petitioners also seek issuance of writ to quash and set aside an order dated 31.12.2021, directing the petitioners to remove their constructions within time bound period.

2. The petitioners also pray for a direction to the respondents to frame a policy to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners and similarly situated hutment dwellers numbering 1052 inhabiting on the river bank of Kansara River of Bhavnagar City and restrain the respondents from removing the construction/hutment of the petitioners and similarity situated persons.

3. The petition was mentioned urgently at 11.00 a.m. on 04.01.2022 and permission was granted on the same day to be moved at 02.30 p.m. Further, on account of some office objections, the matter could not be placed and once-again the matter was mentioned on same day in second half calling upon the Court to once-again take up the matter urgently, as the petitioners anticipated demolition of their houses.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati, who usually appears for the respondent-Corporation was in the Court and was informed about the matter and to take instructions. Accordingly, when the matter came up on board on 06.01.2022, the learned advocate Mr. Nanavati for the respondent-Corporation has placed on record the photographs and the notices as well as an unsworned copy of the affidavit-in-reply with an advance copy to the petitioners' advocate on record and submitted to the Court that the so called hutments were already cleared and the activity has been going since some time, but on account of pendency of the present petition, the residential premises of the petitioners have not been touched, which is evident from the photographs.

5. Learned Arguing Counsel for the Petitioners did not appear on 06.01.2022 and hence, the matter was placed on the next date i.e. 07.01.2022 with the permission to mention the matter at 11.00 a.m., as the issue requires urgent attention.

6. At 11.00 a.m., the matter was mentioned by Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent-Corporation, however, none had remained present on behalf of the petitioners and hence, the learned advocate for the respondent-Corporation while placing the sworned copy of the affidavit on record, tried to draw attention of this Court to the factual situation prevailing. However, in absence of the learned advocate for the petitioners, the Court thought it fit to place the matter in the second half and accordingly, again, the matter was taken up at 2.30 p.m. Even then the learned arguing counsel for the petitioners was not present and a feeble attempt was made by the learned advocate on record and again the matter was kept back so as to enable the arguing learned counsel for the petitioners to make his submissions. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up for hearing.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are threatened to be removed by demolishing the premises held and possessed by the petitioners and in fact, 18 to 19 hutment premises have already been demolished by the respondent-Corporation on 03.01.2022 and the petitioners also apprehend that their premises will be demolished without there being any provision for alternative accommodation to the petitioners.

8. It is the case of the petitioners that the ancestors of the petitioners have started occupying small pieces of land on the bank of river Kansara since early 1980 and in fact, some of the persons had started residing since 1970 onwards.

9. It is submitted that the pieces of land which were occupied by the ancestors of the petitioners, as the land were open pieces of land and