2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 14376
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
ISHWARBHAI HAMIRBHAI VANSAFODIYAV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/SCA/18511/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18511 of 2017 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8506 of 2016 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6862 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No ୰
==========================================================
ISHWARBHAI HAMIRBHAI VANSAFODIYA & ORS.
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANOJ SHRIMALI(2331) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR PG DESAI SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 12/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kanara, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf respondent No.2
2. Since the issues involved in the present petitions are identical and arise out of similar facts, all the petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment treating the Special Civil Application No.18511 of 2017 as lead matter.
3. In the lead matter i.e. Special Civil Application No.18511 of 2017 the petitioners have prayed for following relief/s:-
"8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, for consideration of the case of the petitioners by providing them alternative accommodation and/or by allotting flats in question constructed at Mangal Talavadi area or at any other place.
[B] Till decision for consideration of alternative accommodation to be provided to the petitioners is taken, Your Lordships may be pleased to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners.
[C] Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased direct the respondents to extend benefits of the R & R Scheme to the petitioners.
[D] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide temporary alternative accommodation to the petitioners.
[E] Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require in the interest of justice."
4. Since the identical issues and facts involved in all the petitions the facts mentioned in the lead petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.18511 of 2017 are taken into account.
5. As per the petitioners they had been residing in the Mangal Talavadi hutment area for more than 35 years prior to their removal by the respondent authorities and are therefore affected persons in the present petition. The said land falls under T.P. Scheme No. 26 (Vasna), Final Plot No. 274 + 275/2. At the time of the survey conducted by the respondent authorities, the petitioners had submitted relevant documentary evidence such as Aadhar Cards, tax bills, tax payment receipts, death certificates and other supporting documents.
5.1 The petitioners belong to the lower strata of the society and most of them belong to the SEBC community. They are poor and uneducated persons who earn their livelihood by doing miscellaneous labour work and maintain their families with great difficulty.
5.2 As per petitioners, the respondent no.1 introduced a Scheme for Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums, 2010 and pursuant thereto respondent no.2 awarded a contract to M/s B. Safal & Company for construction of flats at Mangal Talavadi area for rehabilitation of hutment dwellers. A survey of the residents was conducted by the respondent authorities and the petitioners had subm