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

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. L. Odedra, J.
Pushpaben Pravinbhai Vaniya & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 7357 of 2025
Decided On : 14-11-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): MR PRIYANK V PANDYA, MR VIKRAM J THAKOR, Advs.
For the Respondent(s): GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR DEEP D VYAS, Advs.

The Court upheld the Assistant Estate Officer's eviction order under the Town Planning Act, confirming that petitioners' objections were unsubstantiated given their failure to challenge the Town Planning Scheme earlier.

Headnote:(A) Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Section 68 - Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Petition challenging eviction order under Town Planning Scheme - Assistant Estate Officer acted within jurisdiction as authority to issue eviction orders - Petitioners failed to contest the Town Planning Scheme at earlier stages and therefore their objections during implementation were deemed unsustainable - Historical context of land ownership and occupation provided insufficient basis for relief. (Paras 1, 14, 41)

(B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14, 21, 300A - Right to shelter is a fundamental right - However, the lawful exercise of eviction under Town Planning Scheme is permissible - Petitioners entitled to pursue alternative accommodation as per provisions laid in the impugned communication. (Paras 5, 42)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, long-time residents and occupiers of land in an area marked under a Town Planning Scheme, challenged an eviction order on the claim that their removal would violate their constitutional rights. They argued that the Assistant Estate Officer lacked authority to enforce the eviction. (Paras 1-3, 5)

Findings of Court:
The authority that issued the eviction order was legitimate; the Town Planning Scheme had been validly created and finalized many years prior, rendering the petitioners' claims of entitlement to relief unviable. (Paras 41-42)

Issues: Whether the Assistant Estate Officer had jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings under the Town Planning Act, and the validity of the Town Planning Scheme against the petitioners' long-term occupation. (Paras 14, 41)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the legality of the Assistant Estate Officer's actions under the Town Planning Act, as the authority to initiate eviction proceedings had been appropriately delegated within the municipal structure. The petitioners' failure to challenge the Planning Scheme earlier limited their ability to contest removal now. (Paras 14, 41)

Result: Petition dismissed; petitioners instructed to vacate premises but permitted to seek alternative accommodations. (Para 42)

Table of Content
1. nature of the petition and factual background. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments on jurisdiction of the assistant estate officer. (Para 5 , 6 , 9)
3. claims to rights under the constitution and town planning act. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. counterarguments and the state's position. (Para 11 , 12 , 14)
5. review of the town planning scheme and its finality. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. definitions and delegation of authority under the town planning act. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
7. proper delegation of powers in municipal governance. (Para 22 , 24)
8. distinction between due process in demolition contexts. (Para 27 , 28)
9. analogous case law not applicable to current petition. (Para 29 , 30)
10. clarification of the petitioners' lack of valid title. (Para 32 , 34)
11. final determination and options for alternative accommodation. (Para 36 , 38 , 40)
12. conclusion of the petition with a reserved liberty for alternative accommodations. (Para 41 , 42)

JUDGMENT :

J. L. Odedra, J.

1. The petitioners herein, having been aggrieved by the action of the respondent no.2, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, inter alia, in issuing the order dated 21.05.2025 of the respondent no.3, the Assistant Estate Officer, calling on the petitioners to vacate the subject premises, situated on Original Plot Nos.181 and 182 of Survey No.156 and 181 (original Revenue Survey No.156 and 181) of Village Acher, Sabarmati Taluka, Ahmedabad, have preferred the present Special Civil Application.

2. The prayer clause of the Special Civil Application No.7357 / 2025 reads thus:

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure-A) and notice dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioners and be pleased to quash and set aside the entire exercise of evicting the petitioners and removing /demolishing the properties occupied by the petitioners situated on land mentioned in sketch overleaf the impugned notice dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure-B).

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned T.P. Scheme being Final T.P. Scheme No. 23(Sabarmati) being illegal and unconstitutional so far as it affects and relates to properties occupied by the petitioners mentioned in the sketch with notice dated19.04.2025.

(D) During the pendency and till final disposal of the petition, by way of interim relief, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure-A) and notice dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent no. 3 and be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any further action against the petitioners in pursuance of order and notice Annexure-A and B and be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain the status quo in respect of the properties of the petitioners.

(E) Any other relief deemed fit to meet the ends of justice may be granted.

3. The factual narration, as is forthcoming from the pleadings in the present Special Civil Application, is as follows:

a. The petitioners, who are occupants, having their residences and small space for their livelihood, allegedly since last many decades, have received impugned order dated 21.05.2025, whereby the petitioners have been called upon to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the land mentioned in the said order within seven days to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the respondent no.2 herein. That vide the said order, passed by respondent no. 3, Assistant Estate Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, it has been stated that failing the handing over of the possession as aforesaid, the eviction of the petitioners shall follow, including the demolition of the properties of the petitioners.

b. Before the passing of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, notices dated 19.04.2025,

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