Footpath Encroachment: Gujarat High Court Clarifies Limits of Possession and Ownership

In a firm ruling delivered on December 8, 2025, the High Court of Gujarat presided over by Justice Mauna M. Bhatt dismissed a petition filed by Ranjana Mulchandbhai Shitlani, who sought to challenge an eviction notice concerning an alleged encroachment on a public footpath in the Krushnanagar area of Ahmedabad.

The case brings to the forefront the boundaries of property rights and the limitations of judicial intervention when public utility spaces are involved.

The Backdrop: A Dispute Over Property Rights

The petitioner had approached the court against a notice issued on November 20, 2025, which mandated the removal of alleged encroachments from a public footpath within 15 days. Ms. Shitlani argued that as a Power of Attorney (POA) holder for the premises, she exercised de-facto ownership, supported by her history of tax payments to the Municipal Corporation.

She contended that the issuance of the notice failed to follow the procedural requirements dictated by the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 , and that as a long-term occupant, she was entitled to due process before any eviction could take place.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioner’s counsel insisted that the long-standing occupation and payment of municipal taxes established a legitimate claim, arguing that the notice was issued in breach of the principles of natural justice.

Conversely, the counsel for the respondent (the Corporation) pointed out a critical flaw in the petitioner's standing. It was observed that the notice was not even addressed to the petitioner, but to the original allottee, rendering the petition's premise shaky. Furthermore, the respondent highlighted photographic evidence showing an undeniable encroachment on a public footpath, which is prohibited by law. It was also noted that the reliance on the POA was misplaced, as the document did not originate from the original allottee of the property.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

Justice Mauna M. Bhatt ruled that the nature of the proceedings—a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution—was inherently unsuitable for settling title disputes. The court clarified that mere possession, even if sustained over a significant period, does not confer ownership rights upon an occupant, particularly when the subject property is public land.

The court rejected the request to stay the eviction, emphasizing that the legality of the notice—given that it sought to remove an encroachment—remained intact, and the procedural arguments raised by the petitioner could not insulate her from the mandate to clear public space.

Key Observations

Highlighting the court’s rigorous stance on public space integrity, the judgment noted:

• "It is noticed that long possession will not create any ownership right in favour of the petitioner."
• "In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the title of the property cannot be decided."
• "The petitioner being the encroacher is rightly directed to remove the encroachment and there being no illegality in the notice dated 20.11.2025."

Final Decision

The petition was summarily rejected. By upholding the state's authority to remove encroachments from footpaths, the Court has reinforced the principle that public pathways must remain accessible to the citizenry. This ruling serves as a warning against the misappropriation of public spaces and affirms that municipal authorities retain the power to reclaim such lands, regardless of unsubstantiated occupation claims raised by third parties.