Illegal construction on government land without ownership or permission does not entitle the petitioners to challenge the Corporation's action. The Corporation's offer of alternative accommodation makes the demolition just and proper.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners by challenging the notices dated 30.03.2017, it is served upon the petitioners on 31.03.2017, upon 8.00 p.m. and on 01.04.2017 in the morning (Saturday), the demolition drive is carried out and therefore, the petitioner has modified the petition on the holiday and by praying to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when the matter is heard by learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court on 01.04.2017, the following order is passed:

“1. This matter is circulated today on the basis of the permission granted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

3. It deserves to be noted that by an order dated 24.03.2017, this Court had disposed of the earlier petitions filed by the very petitioners being SCA Nos. 2226/17 to 2231/17, wherein the following is observed:

“2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondent no. 3 has stated on oath as under:

11. I say that the Corporation without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions in support of their stand as regard lawfulness of their action and unsustainability of challenge made by the petitioner to such legal action in the present petition, has decided to withdraw the show cause notice dated 31.12.2016 issued to the petitioner by the Corporation. I say that in view of withdrawal of the said notice the order dated 3.02.2017 does not survive and the petition challenging the said order consequently becomes infructuous. I submit that no cause of action now survives for the petitioner to maintain the present petition and consequently the petition deserves to be dismissed in law.

12. I submit that the aforesaid decision of the Corporation does not bear recognition of any right, legal or law of the petitioner nor has it been taken because of mantainability and/or acceptability of any legal submission advanced by the petitioner in the present petition. I say that the decision to withdraw the show cause notice dated 3.02.2016 and cancel the order dated 3.02.2017 flowing from the said notice have been taken only with a view to avoid legal complications relating to authority of the Corporation in issuing the notice on the date on which it was issued by the Corporation. I reiterate that the withdrawal of the notice and cancellation of order made thereunder therefore may not be construed as admission of any wrongdoing on the part of the Corporation.

13. I submit that the Corporation reserves the right and liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice, if any, as may be permissible in law, at a future date upon the petitioner in accordance with law.

3. In light of the aforesaid statement on affidavit by the Corporation as the notice impugned is withdrawn, the petitions do not survive. However, in case if any similar actions are taken, rights of both the parties are kept open.

4. It appears that on withdrawal of the said petitions the impugned notices issued on 30.03.2017 were served at 7.40 PM on 31.03.2017. The notices dated 30.03.2017 states that the construction in question is made without permission/unauthorised and in breach of the GDCR and on receipt of these notices, the same may be demolished/removed or else, immediate proceedings will be taken. It is informed that the notices have been implemented. It is unfortunate. Hence, Notice returnable on 06.04.2017. Ms. Akta Jadeja, learned advocate waives for respondents no. 3 and 5 and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP waives for respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 6. No further action shall be taken by the respondent Corporation and no change in position of the land which is the subject matter of this petition shall be made by the either parties. It is also stated that both the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have been given the full set of the paper book.

5. This order is passed today at 2.15 p.m. in presence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. D.S. is permitted today. Learned counsel appearin