Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. Thaker, J.
Bhikhnath Chhagannath Nathbava – Petitioner
Versus
Government Of India – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 5898 of 2021
Decided On : 11-11-2022
Street Vendors Act - Land Occupation - Section 3 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Street Vendors Act, 2014 - Section 3
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners occupied a piece of land for running their small business. They received notices under the Bombay Land Revenue Code to vacate the land. The petitioners contended that the notices were violative of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 and the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not provide evidence that the place was declared as a vending zone by the competent authority. The court also noted that the possession of the land was with the government, and the petitioners had not challenged the original order directing them to remove constructions. The court dismissed the petition, stating that if the competent authority carries out a survey under Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act, the case of the petitioners may be considered sympathetically.
Issues: Violation of Street Vendors Act, 2014 and the Constitution of India, possession of the land, challenge to the original order
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners failed to provide evidence that the place was declared as a vending zone by the competent authority. The possession of the land was with the government, and the petitioners had not challenged the original order directing them to remove constructions.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, with the observation that if the competent authority carries out any survey under Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, then in that case, the case of the petitioners may be considered sympathetically.
ORDER :
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-
“(A) Your lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate write by way of quashing and set aside the notice dated 26.03.2021 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority not to demolish/ remove/ evict/ relocate the cabins of the petitioner and allow to carry the business at the same place till the survey specified in section 3 of the street vendor at has been completed And certificate of the vending is issue to the petitioner in the interest of Justice.
(B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition to stay the further operation of the notice dated 26/3/2021 pass by the response number 3 Mamlatdar Halol and further be pleased to allow petitioner to carry their business on the same place till the Exercise specified in Section 3 of the Street Vender Act, 2014 in the interest of justice.
(C) pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition Your Lordship may be pleased to grant status quo in respect of business and land in question.
(D) Your Lordship may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as may be just and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things.
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to restore the original position of the cabins in question and petitioners may be permitted to allow to run the business unless the procedure is completed specified under Section 3 of the Street Vender Act, 2014 in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:-
2.1. The petitioners are occupying the land in question for running their small business like, to sell prasad, lemonade etc. on survey no.1/1/A paiki 1 which belongs to Champaner Gram Panchayat. It is contended that on 27.03.2015, notice under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code came to be served to them and hearing was fixed on 15.04.2015. That they have filed their reply thereof. But, nothing has happened at that relevant point of time.
2.2. It is contended that once again on 21.01.2021, notice under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code came to be served upon them and hearing was fixed on 25.01.2021 at about 15.00 hours. It is contended that the same was replied by the petitioners contending that they are in continuous possession of the land in question and running their small business thereon since last more than 20 years and are paying due tax to the concerned authorities.
2.3. It is contended that though the petitioners have filed the reply as aforesaid, on 20.03.2021, without considering the reply of the petitioners the respondent authority has passed the order to remove the alleged unauthorized construction holding that the land in question was used for commercial purpose and it was directed to the Talati Cum-Mantri, Champaner Gram Panchayat to start the proceedings for taking penalty. It is also contended that again on 26.03.2021, notice under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code came to be served to the petitioners and they were directed to vacate the unauthorized possession of the land in question on or before 29.03.2021.
2.4. According to the petitioner, the notice/ action of the respondent authority is violative for Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India as well as against the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “Street Vendors Act”) and against the order of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4156-4157 of 2002.
2.5. It is contended that the petitioners are in occupation of the land in question since last 20 years and they are paying tax to the panchayat and have also obtained electricity facility and therefore their occupation cannot be termed as illegal one.
2.6. Initially the prayer was limited for restraining the respondents from demolishing or evicting the petitioners from the land in quest
AI
The petitioners must provide evidence that the place was declared as a vending zone by the competent authority, and possession of the land is a crucial factor in determining the applicability of the ....
Definition of ‘street vendors’ clearly mentions that they have to carry on business from a temporary built-up structure.
Compliance with statutory notice requirements and proper issuance of street vending certificates were upheld, confirming lawful methodological procedures for vendor relocations under the Street Vendi....
The court affirmed that street vendors do not have an unqualified right to occupy designated no-vending zones and that proper procedures for eviction as per the relevant statutes were followed.
Street vendors cannot be evicted without adherence to statutory provisions, including the completion of surveys and designation of vending zones as mandated by the Street Vendors Act.
The respondent authority is the lawful owner of the Final Plot No. 49 and therefore, unauthorized constructions of tin sheet sheds with iron angles and guarders are without any authority of Rules and....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
