IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1187 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4444 of 2019 ==========================================================

HARIBHAI SHANKARBHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.

Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR BHUSHAN B OZA(1072) for the PETITIONER(s) No.

1,10,11,13,14,15,17,18,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,33,35,37 ,38,39,4,40,41,42,5,6,7,8,9 MR PRIYANK V PANDYA(10705) for the PETITIONER(s) No.

1,10,11,13,14,15,17,18,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,33,35,37 ,38,39,4,40,41,42,5,6,7,8,9 MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the RESPONDENT(s) No.

10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 29/10/2025 IA ORDER

1. This Civil Application No.1/2025 has been preferred by the applicants (appellants), by way of which, the applicants (appellants) have made the following prayers:-

“A. That your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Application.

B. Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned IA order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Single Judge (Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Mauna M. Bhatt, J.) passed in Civil Application (For Vacating Stay) No. 01/2025 in Special Civil Application No.4444/2019 and be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the appellants and take any action against the appellants in respect of their residential properties.

C. Grant such other and further relief(s) as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”

2. It may be noted that the appellants are aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has vacated the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners. Apparently, the appellants are aggrieved by the fact that their residential premises are falling on an 18 Mtrs. and 9 Mtrs. Town Planning Road connecting from Vastrapur Lake to BRTS Corridor at Shivranjani – Iscon Road. The case of the respondent – State/Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is that these premises are illegal encroachment, over a land called Ranujanagar. It also stated that the eligible candidates have been provided alternative accommodation, more particularly, of the 59 appellants (Original petitioners), 56 have availed alternative accommodation. And that 36 of them are found to have dual occupations. The respondents had interim relief operating in their favour which was sought to be vacated in the month of January 2025, but till 25.09.2025, no rebuttal of facts by affidavit was made.

Thus, the impugned order was passed.

3. Today, during the course of this hearing learned Advocate for the appellant, Shri Bhushan B. Oza and Shri P.V.

Pandya has produced an affidavit in rejoinder on behalf of the appellants. It may be recalled that vide order dated 21.10.2025, of this Court, both the sides were required to file affidavit-in-reply, adducing adequate facts on record of the Court.

4. In the said affidavit-in-rejoinder, the deponent, one of the appellants, has adduced photographs by way of Annexure- A2. It is his case that photographs depict that the alternative accommodation as has been provided to the appellants are not fit to use for the residential purpose. He has urged that if the appellants are allotted alternative accommodations of the reasonable size in other ‘Awas Yojana’ like Mukhaya- Mantri Awas Yojana, Pradhan – Mantri Awas Yojana or any other rehabilitation scheme, the appellants are ready and willing to accept it and surrender the allotment of the present alternative accommodations allotted in “Krushnadham Awas Yojna.” It was submitted that the said fact in Krushnadham Awas Yojana are not inhabitable and to substantiate the same, certain photographs ha