Holding

The petition is meritless and must be dismissed because the occupants are illegal encroachments on government land and no entitlement to rehabilitation exists.

Summary

The petitioners, residents of the Jangleshwar and Nadoda Nagar slums in Rajkot, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 and the Gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1973 for alternative accommodation and a stay on demolition of their homes. The respondents, municipal authorities, argued that the petitioners were illegal occupants of government land and a river bed, had made no applications for rehabilitation, and that demolition had already been carried out. The court examined the petitioners’ claim of entitlement under the 2010 Regulations and 2013 Government Resolution, the lack of any representation before the corporation, and the fact that the area was a notified water body where construction is prohibited. Relying on precedents that unauthorised constructions must be demolished and that no vested right to shelter exists on illegal encroachments, the court held the petition meritless. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, the rule discharged and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

The petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation and alternative accommodation under the Gujarat Slum Areas Act, 1973.
The respondents may lawfully demolish structures on government land/water body without providing alternative housing.
Whether the petitioners’ long‑term occupation creates a vested right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the petition constitutes an abuse of process and should be dismissed.

Subjects

slum rehabilitationunauthorised constructiondemolitionright to shelterArticle 226mandamusabuse of processnatural justiceGujarat Slum Areas Act

Judgment

C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2301 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2301 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=========================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes --
==========================================
KURESHI IRFANBHAI MOHAMMADSHARIFBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,11,110,111,112,113,
114,115,116,117,118,119,12,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,
129,13,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,14,140,141,142,1
43,144,145,146,147,148,149,15,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,1
58,159,16,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,17,170,171,17
2,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,18,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,18
7,188,189,19,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,2,20,200,20
1,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,21,210,211,212,213,214,215,21
6,217,218,219,22,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,23,230,
231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,24,240,241,242,243,244,245,
246,247,248,249,25,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,26,2
60,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,27,270,271,272,273,274,2
75,276,277,278,279,28,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,2
9,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,3,30,300,301,302,303,3
04,305,306,307,308,309,31,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,317,318,3
19,32,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,33,330,331,332,33
3,334,335,336,337,338,339,34,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,34
8,349,35,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,358,359,36,360,361,362,
363,364,365,366,367,368,369,37,370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,
378,379,38,380,381,382,383,384,385,386,387,388,389,39,390,391,3

Page 1 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

92,393,394,395,396,397,398,399,4,40,400,401,402,403,404,405,406,
407,408,409,41,410,411,412,413,414,415,416,417,418,419,42,420,4
21,422,423,424,425,426,427,428,429,43,430,431,432,433,434,435,4
36,437,438,439,44,440,441,442,443,444,445,446,447,448,449,45,45
0,451,452,453,454,455,456,457,458,459,46,460,461,462,463,464,46
5,466,467,468,469,47,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,48,
480,481,482,483,484,485,486,487,488,489,49,490,491,492,493,494,
495,496,497,498,499,5,50,500,501,502,503,504,505,506,507,508,50
9,51,510,511,512,513,514,515,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,6,60,61,62,6
3,64,65,66,67,68,69,7,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,8,80,81,82,83,8
4,85,86,87,88,89,9,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99
MR. GAURAV A. GOGIA(14128) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,1
15,116,117,118,119,12,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,1
3,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,14,140,141,142,143,14
4,145,146,147,148,149,15,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,15
9,16,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,17,170,171,172,173,
174,175,176,177,178,179,18,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,
189,19,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,2,20,200,201,202,
203,204,205,206,207,208,209,21,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,
218,219,22,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,23,230,231,2
32,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,24,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,2
47,248,249,25,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,26,260,26
1,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,27,270,271,272,273,274,275,27
6,277,278,279,28,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,29,290,
291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,3,300,301,302,303,304,305,3
06,307,308,309,31,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,317,318,319,32,32
0,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,33,330,331,332,333,334,33
5,336,337,338,339,34,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348,349,35,
350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,358,359,36,360,361,362,363,364,
365,366,367,368,369,37,370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,
38,380,381,382,383,384,385,386,387,388,389,39,390,391,392,393,3
94,395,396,397,398,399,4,40,400,401,402,403,404,405,406,407,408,
409,41,410,411,412,413,414,415,416,417,418,419,42,420,421,422,4
23,424,425,426,427,428,429,43,430,431,432,433,434,435,436,437,4
38,439,44,440,441,442,443,444,445,446,447,448,449,45,450,451,45
2,453,454,455,456,457,458,459,46,460,461,462,463,464,465,466,46
7,468,469,47,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,481,48
2,483,484,485,486,487,488,489,490,491,492,493,494,495,496,497,4
98,499,5,50,500,501,502,503,504,505,506,507,508,509,51,510,511,5
12,513,514,515,52,53,54,55,57,58,59,6,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,6
9,7,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,79,8,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,9,90
,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99

Page 2 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

MR GH VIRK GP WITH DHARITRI PANCHOLI AGP for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,5,7
MR GH VIRK GP WITH MR HS MUNSHAW(495) WITH NENCY SHETH
ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 4
==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 16/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for @nal hearing.

3. Present petition is @led by the petitioners under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and under Sections 3 and 58 of the Gujarat
Slum Areas (Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1973
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) seeking following reliefs:-

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

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondent(s) No.1 to 3 authorities to
provide the alternative accommodation to the
Petitioner(s) and other of the Jangleshwar & Nadoda
Slum Area in light of the schemes of State of Gujarat
i.e. Regulations of 2010 and GR dated 18.07.2013 as
the said areas are noti-ed as slums by the
Respondent(s) No.3 Authority by way of noti-cation
dated 13.07.2017 published in the Gujarat
Government Gazette dated 18.10.2017.

C. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of

Page 3 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondent(s) Authorities not to take
any coercive steps against the Petitioner(s) /
occupants of the Jangleshwar & Nadoda Nagar Slum
area under any statue till the rehabilitation of the
Petitioner(s) has been -nalized & completed under
the Regulations of 2010 and GR dated 18.07.2013 of
the State of Gujarat.

D. Pending admission, hearing and -nal disposal of
present petition, not to take any coercive steps
against the Petitioner(s) / occupants of the
Jangleshwar & Nadoda Nagar Slum area under any
statue till the rehabilitation of the Petitioner(s) has
been -nalized & completed under the Regulations of
2010 and GR dated 18.07.2013 of the State of
Gujarat.

E. Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and
further orders as may be deemed -t and proper.

4. Facts of the present case are that the petitioners are the
resident of Jangleshwar area of Rajkot and the said area is situated at
Revenue Survey No. 256 and about 40,000 families are residing in the
Jangleshwar and Nadoda Nagar Society and respondents – authorities
wanted to vacate the said area of Jangleshwar and to demolish
unauthorized construction over the subject parcel of land. The
respondents – authorities, without providing the adequate
accommodation to the existing residents, are trying to implement the
T.P. Scheme which otherwise suIers from serious irregularities. The
petitioners and all residents of the Jangleshwar and Nadoda slums are
quali@ed and eligible for rehabilitation under the Regulations of 2010
and they are the occupants of the Jangleshwar slums since last more
than 30 to 60 years and prior to 2010 and therefore, they are entitled
for rehabilitation.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents –

Page 4 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

authorities, without providing alternative accommodation to the
occupants of the Jangleshwar and Nadoda Nagar slums, are taking
actions under diIerent statutes with an intend to nullify the orders
passed by this Court in the petition @led under one statue by taking
actions under the diIerent statues and to keep the occupants /
dwellers under the threat and fear.

5. Heard Mr.Gogia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and Mr.Virk, learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent – State Authorities. Perused the material placed on record.
The aKdavit-in-reply and aKdavit-in-rejoinder have also @led by the
respective parties.

6. The aKdavit-in-reply has been @led by the respondent –
Corporation. The relevant paragraphs of the aKdavit-in-reply read as
under:-

“The present petition is nothing but a malicious attempt to
derail and delay the development of Jangleshwar area in
Rajkot city and the implementation of Town planning
Scheme No. 6 (Rajkot).

The modus operandi of the petitioners has been to -le
repeated petitions by changing the characteristics of the
prayers at each stage and this deserve to be deprecated.

The petitioner has suppressed the fact that for the
Jangleshwar area; more particularly lands forming part of
Aji River which is in the Jangleshwar area, Writ Petition (PIL)
No. 18 of 2025 had been -led wherein, this Hon'ble Court
was pleased to not grant any protection to the persons
residing inside the waterbody, I.e. Aji river as also on the
Town Planning Road.

The answering respondent speci-cally states that not even
1 out of the 515 petitioners who have -led the present
petition have made any representation before the

Page 5 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

Corporation for rehabilitation under any Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme.

The entire tone and tenor of the present petition,
culminating into prayers at paragraph no. 61 is design to
give an impression to this Hon'ble Court that the
Corporation has received the representation from the
petitioners but has not acted on the same or has not
decided them In fact, in the course of oral arguments on
19.02.2026, in was speci-cally alleged by the petitioners
that the Corporation has not decided any representation
made by the petitioners. However, the fact remains that
not even one representation has been received from any of
the petitioners.

On 19.02.2026, when the captioned petition was heard for
the -rst time, after advancing some arguments, the
Petitioners sought time to place their representation(s) on
record by -lling a further a?davit. In the further a?davit
which has been served to answering respondent on 19.02
2026 at around 08:00 PM. there is not a single averment or
de-nitive statement that any of the Petitioner have made
any application before the Corporation under the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme. Furthermore, although time was
speci-cally sought to state on a?davit that the petitioners
are occupying the notifying Slum Areas, no such statement
is made on a?davit.

It is respectfully submitted and speci-cally stated that
none of the petitioners are occupying the noti-ed Slum
Areas and all of the petitioners are illegal occupants of
either the river bed or the Town Planning road.

Therefore, the present petition is a malicious petition
whereby multiple, vague averments are made to deceive
this Hon'ble Court with a view to stall the development of a
critical, arterial road of Rajkot city which runs parallel to
the Ajt river that traverses the city. At this juncture, it is
apposite to note that the said TP Road, starting from 80
Feet Road to Nadodanagar is presently so narrow and
marred by encroachments that even emergency vehicles
such as ambulances and -re-tenders cannot traverse the
said road.

The fact that none of the petitioners are occupying any
noti-ed Slum Area and yet are making false statements in
this regard and/or are seeking parity with persons residing

Page 6 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

in noti-ed slum areas, exposes the strategy of the
petitioner to conEate and combine two distinct issues, after
having failed to secure any relief in the course of 3 Public
Interest Litigations.

By bringing petition with en masse petitioners, without
placing any material on record for each distinct petitioner,
and after having failed in securing any protection in 3
(three) rounds of Public Interest Litigations being WP(PIL)
No. 47 of 2022 (Page 149), WP(PIL) No. 65 of 2024 (Page
154), and WP(PIL) No. 18 of 2025 (Annexure-Ri which has
been suppressed by the Petitioners), a malicious attempt is
being made to stall the development in Rajkot City for
extraneous consideration.

It is pertinent to note that till date, insofar as genuine slum
dwellers are concerned, the Corporation has already
allotted 873 dwelling units. Shockingly, it has been
observed that under the tutelage of local elements, the
people who are allotted dwelling units walk out of their
encroached structures while renting these structures out to
new persons.

It is pertinent to note that not a single document is
produced on record to evidence any entitlement of the
Petitioners over the land forming part of TP road or river
bed.

Notices under Section 260 of the Gujarat Provincial
Municipality Act, 1949, have been issued to Petitioner Nos.
1, 16, 20, 21, 57, 60, 81, 83, 98, 164, 165, 169, 173, 198,
202, 232, 234, 351, 353-362,364-368, 370-372, 374-376,
378-388,390-399, 401-403, 405-410, 413-420, 422, 424,
426-430, 432-433, 455, 456, 459, 463, 464, 468, 471, 472,
473, 476, 477, 479-483, 485-494, 496, 499-507, 508, 510,
512 and 513, ie. a total of 147 petitioners. These 147
Petitioners are occupying the river bed of Aji river and have
no entitlement in law to claim any relief in view of multiple
pronouncements of various Hon'ble Courts. These 147
Petitioners cannot be permitted to -le the present Petition
as they are not occupying any noti-ed slum area.

The remaining 368 petitioners are aliens on the records of
the Corporation and are not occupying noti-ed slum areas.

On a bare perusal of the particulars of the Petitioners, it
would appear that multiple people belonging to the same

Page 7 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

family or a larger family set-up are roped-in to arti-cially
increase the number of the Petitioners. In this regards, the
below mentioned details of the Petitioners who appeared to
be the part of the same family may be considered.

It is respectfully submitted that upon perusal of the
particulars of the petitioners, it is prima facie evident that
several names have been deliberately, knowingly and with
a mala -de intent duplicated in the array of parties in the
present Petition. The same individuals have been shown
more than once under diGerent serial numbers with the
sole intent of arti-cially inEating the number of the
petitioners and creating a false and misleading impression
before this Hon'ble Court that a large body of persons has
invoked its jurisdiction. Such conduct is not a mere
inadvertent error but a calculated attempt to overreach the
judicial process. The deliberate repetition of names clearly
demonstrate absence of bona -des and constitutes a gross
abuse of the process of law. The duplicated names are
produced as under:

A. Petitioner No. 1 & Petitioner No. 351 Kureshi Irfanbhai
Mohammadsharifbhai

B. Petitioner No. 342 & Petitioner No. 404 - Premjibhai
Merabhai Jadav

C. Petitioner No. 168 & Petitioner No. 263 - Sultanbhai
Allarakhabhai Theba.

It is most respectfully submitted that the aforesaid
petitions came to be -led on 12.02.2026 and 16 02.02026,
respectively and are presently kept under o?ce objections
defects before the Registry of this Hon'ble Court. It is
further submitted that the -lling of multiple petitions
seeking the similar relief in respect of the same subject
matter, with cosmetic or super-cial modi-cations in
pleadings and grounds raised, amounts to a clear abuse of
the process of law. The same is nothing but an attempt to
overreach the due process of this Hon'ble Court with a view
to stall the development of the Jangleshwar area at the
instance of vested interest groups/individuals.

Therefore, the present petition, seeking equitable relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, deserves to
be dismissed with exemplary cost since it suGers from
multiple counts of supersessions, suggestio falsi and

Page 8 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

suppressio veri, and is designed to mislead this Hon'ble
Court.

7. Mr.Gogia, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the
same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and also
submitted that the right to shelter is the fundamental right of the
petitioners. He has submitted that the respondents are hiding the real
intention of demolition and eviction and the object behind the same to
save themselves from providing the alternative accommodation to the
poor section of the petitioners and the respondents have taken the
steps / actions not with clean hands and hence, the same deserves to
be quashed set aside and/or required to be stayed. He has submitted
that respondents are using the powers under the Gujarat Land
Revenue Code, Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act and the
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act to achieve the
real agenda of evicting / demolishing the residential units and convert
the use of the same for commercial purpose. He has also submitted
that Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India suggests the right to
residence and settlement in any part of India as a fundamental right
and right to life has been assured as basic human right under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, which also includes right to livelihood.
He has further submitted that Article 25(1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has right to
standard of living adequate for health and well-being of himself & his
family; it includes food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary
social service. He has submitted that Article 11(1) of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights lays down that the
State Parties to the Covenant recognize that everyone has the right to
standard of living for himself & his family members including food,
clothing, housing, and to the continuous improvement to living

Page 9 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

conditions. Mr.Gogia, learned counsel has submitted that the
respondent - Municipal Corporation / Authorities must adhere to
various welfare statutes including the schemes and statutes narrated
in the petition and policies designed to protect marginalized groups
including the rights of slum dwellers and labourers to adequate
housing. He has submitted that the proposed eviction / demolition
without providing alternative accommodation, violates the residential
rights to shelter and to live with dignity and there is no viable plan
provided by the Municipal Corporation / Authority for the
rehabilitation / redevelopment of the slum area. He has submitted
that Authorities by swiftly ignoring the noti@cation dated 13.07.2017
which was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated
18.10.2017 which provides that the Jangleshwar and Nadoda Nagar
Area are declared and noti@ed as slums which makes the residents of
the slum areas entitled for the rehabilitation, have started the process
of eviction and demolition in arbitrary manner. He has submitted that
Authorities below have neither adhered nor followed the Regulations
of 2010 and GR of 2013 and have started actions against the
petitioners and other occupants of the slum area which amounts to
miscarriage of justice. According to Mr.Gogia, learned counsel, the
actions taken by the respondents without the rehabilitation of
petitioners and other occupants amounts to violation of Article 19(E)
and 21 of the Constitution of India and Article 21 confers the right to
livelihood. He has further submitted that the actions taken by the
respondents are in violation of the settled legal principles pronounced
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and also in
violation of principle of natural justice, equity and good conscience.
He has submitted that the actions taken by the respondents are
without following due process of law which amounts to miscarriage of
justice and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

Page 10 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

7.1 In support of his submissions, Mr.Gogia, learned counsel for the
petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:-

(a) Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 (3) SCC
545;
(b) Chameli Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, JT
1995 (9) SC 380;
(c) Shantistar Builders Vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame, JT 1990 (1)
SC 106;
(d) P.G. Gupta Vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 182;
(e) Ajay Maken Vs. UOI, 2019 LawSuit (Del) 913;
(f) Sudama Singh and Others Vs. Government of Delhi and
Others, 2010 (168) DLT 218;
(g) LIC Vs. D.J.Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315;

7.2 Mr.Gogia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the present petition deserves to be allowed and necessary directions
be given to the authorities to provide alternative accommodation to
the petitioner of Jangleshwar and Nadoda.

8. Per contra, Mr.Virk, learned Government Pleader for the
respondents – authorities has submitted that the petitioners, who @led
this petition, have encroached upon the government land. He has
submitted that not a single petitioners out of the 515 petitioners have
made any representation before the Corporation for rehabilitation
under any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and not a single document
produced on record to evidence any entitlement of the petitioners
over the land forming part of TP road. He has submitted that none of
the petitioners are occupying the noti@ed Slum Areas and all of the

Page 11 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

petitioners are illegal occupants of either the river bed or the Town
Planning road and none of the petitioners are occupying any noti@ed
Slum Area and yet are making false statements and seeking parity
with persons residing in noti@ed slum areas. He has submitted that
the present petition, seeking equitable relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, deserves to be dismissed with cost as it suIers
from multiple counts of supersessions of material fact and mislead
this Court. He has submitted that till the @ling of the present petition,
the petitioners have not made any representation before the
concerned authority and if the Corporation has received the
representation from the petitioners but has not acted on the same or
has not decided it. In fact, in the course of oral arguments on
19.02.2026, it was speci@cally alleged by the petitioners that the
Corporation has not decided any representation made by the
petitioners, however, the fact remains that not even a single
representation has been made by any of the petitioners, on the
contrary, the petitioners sought time for placing the copy of the
representation before this Court. Over-and-above, the contentions
raised in the aKdavit-in-reply, learned Government Pleader has
submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.

8.1 In support of his submissions, Mr.Virk, learned Government
Pleader has relied upon following the orders / judgments passed by
the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court.

(i) Fuljaha Noormohammed Shaikh and others Vs. State of Gujarat
and others in Special Civil Application No. 6119 of 2025 dated
29.04.2025.
(ii) Samsuddin Jainulabiddin Shaikh and others Vs. The State of
Gujarat and others in Special Civil Application No. 6716 of

Page 12 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

2025 dated 06.05.2025.
(iii) Khodiyar Mata Mandir Temple Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation and others in Special Civil Application No. 16467
of 2025 dated 23.12.2025.
(iv) Navneetlal Vanmalidas Khakhkhar (Thakkar) Vs. Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation in Letters Patent Appeal No.1280 pf
2025 dated 02.12.2025.

9. It appears that during the pendency of the petition, the
petitioners have circulated Civil Application No.1 of 2026 inter alia
contending that the area situated in Jangleshwar is noti@ed area and
the State of Gujarat has issued the noti@cation on 13.07.2017 which
was published in the Government Gazette on 18.10.2017 whereby
revenue survey No. 256 of Rajkot as well as is part of T.P. Scheme
No.6 Rajkot is noti@ed area. That the respondents represented
through the learned Government Pleader, who has stated before
this Court that the State will @le the reply, but till submission of the
reply, the petitioners have not served with the copy of the
representation. That the demolition was scheduled on 23.02.2026 on
the above slum area by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation over the
diIerent F.P. No. 133, 136, 177, 176, 159 are part of T.P. Scheme
No.6 Rajkot and are part of the speci@ed slum area. For this fact,
learned Government Pleader has raised serious objection that it is not
declared speci@ed area and it was not speci@ed slum area and the
civil application was listed before the Coordinate Bench of this Court
on 02.03.2026 and the Court has passed an order and kept the matter
for hearing on 12.03.2026. During the said period, the actual
demolition took place and, therefore, the prayer as sought for has
become infructuous as the actual demolition already took place and
the Corporation has taken the possession of the subject parcel of

Page 13 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

land.

10. Having considered the facts of the case and averments made in
the petition and the decisions cited at the Bar and perused the
material on record, it appears that the learned Single Judge has
passed an order, which is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court,
the petition is not required to be entertained as it is settled principles
of law that when the government land was encroached upon by
unauthorized occupants.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kaniz Ahmed Vs.
Sabuddin and others rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
12199 – 12200 of 2025, has held as under:-

““4. We admire the courage and conviction with which the
High Court has proceeded to take care of unauthorised
construction in exercise of its jurisdiction in public interest.

5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of
Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we
have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and
every construction must be made scrupulously following
and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the
event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the
courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any
leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of
unauthorised construction would amount to showing
misplaced sympathy. In our decision referred to above, we
have issued the following directions:

xxx xxx xxx

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that her client be given one chance to pray for
regularization of the unauthorised construction. We do not
-nd any merit in such submission. A person who has no
regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for
regularization after putting up unauthorised construction of

Page 14 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

two Eoors. This has something to do with the rule of law.
Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is
no way out. Judicial discretion would be guided by
expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters.
Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. We are at
pains to observe that the aforesaid aspect has not been
kept in mind by many State Governments while enacting
Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act based on
payment of impact fees.”

12. In the case of Fuljaha Noormohammed Shaikh (supra), this
Court (Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mauna M. Bhatt) has held and
observed in paras 6 to 14 as under:-

6. Considered the submissions and perused the documents
supplied by the petitioners (paper-book). At the outset, it is
noticed that many averments are made in the petition and
in the a?davit in reply referring to alleged criminal
activities in the subject premises. However, since the issue
involved is with regard to initiation of demolition by
respondents, without entering into other aspects, this
petition is considered for the prayer made with regard to
demolition and rehabilitation. From the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioners, it is noticed that this petition
challenges the initiation of demolition by respondents on
mainly two grounds. Firstly, that though the petitioners are
residing with their families on the subject premises since
decades, the activity of demolition was initiated without
notice to the petitioners, and therefore there is gross
violation of principles on natural justice as observed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Re: Directions in the
matter of demolition of structures reported in 2024 (0)
INSC 866; and secondly that till the cases of the petitioners
are considered under rehabilitation scheme of the
Government, the respondents may be restrained to carry
out demolition.

7. While dealing with the -rst contention of the petitioners,
it is noticed that their case if plainly put is that merely
because they are residing in Chandola Lake area since last
60 years, they may not be deprived of their residences
without notice. To show long occupation at the subject
premises, paper-book containing certain documents is
placed on record. However, it is not disputed that Chandola

Page 15 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

Lake is a water body and on a water body, no construction
can be permitted. The contention raised that without
measurement done as per CRZ Noti-cation, petitioners’
premises cannot be stated to be on water body, in the
opinion of this Court does not merit acceptance in view of
the a?davit dated 29.04.2025, by respondent no.1 that the
area for which the demolition activity has been initiated is
a lake and water reservoir situated at Dani Limda Road in
Ahmedabad. It is further stated on a?davit that said land
being admittedly a noti-ed water body, no civic body has
ever given any development permission to any
person/applicant for construction on the lake.

8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Re:
Directions in the matter of demolition of structures
reported in 2024 (0) INSC 866 on which heavy reliance is
placed wherein it is held as under: -

“91. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not
be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any
public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway
line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases
where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of
law.

Therefore, the arguments canvassed of breach of
principles of natural justice by non-issuance of notice prior
demolition does not merit acceptance and thus rejected.

9. The second argument canvassed on behalf of the
petitioners is in relation to applicability of rehabilitation and
resettlement policy of the State government of 2010 and
2013. It is contended that without providing any alternative
accommodation to the petitioners, the action taken of
demolition of their houses being illegal, deserves to be
stopped by passing restraint orders to the respondents. In
this regard, it is noticed that for long occupancy, no
documents have been produced along with the petition.
The documents like Aadhar Card, Death or Birth Certi-cate,
Electricity Bills, BPL Card, are produced by way of paper-
book which refers to petitioners’ addresses as Chandola
Lake Chapra, Dani Limda, Ahmedabad. Nothing has been
produced to justify the construction of premises with some
permission.

10. Further, in view of Section 37 of the Gujarat Land

Page 16 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

Revenue Code, 1879, the land of a water body is a
Government land and, on such land, no construction is
permitted. Hence, in the opinion of this Court the
construction which has been carried out by the petitioners
is illegal construction and appears to have been continued
since many years.

11. Now taking the contention that since the petitioners are
residing on the subject premises since many years and
therefore, they should not be deprived of their houses
without providing them adequate opportunity, this Court
would like to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Anr. v.s.
U P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. Reported in 2024
SC 1172 wherein it is held as under: -

“19. In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically
held that illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be
perpetuated. If the construction is made in contravention of
the Acts / Rules, it would be construed as illegal and
unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily
demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected solely
under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of
the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that
substantial money has been spent on the said construction.
The following decisions are of relevance and hence cited
herein below to drive home the point that unauthorized
constructions must be dealt with, with an iron hand and not
kid gloves.”

12. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court since the
construction of the petitioners are on the water body which
is evident from the a?davit -led as also the area is also
known as Chandola Lake area, the argument that
procedure is not followed and the principles of natural
justice being not adhered to, in the opinion of this Court
would not be acceptable and therefore the submissions
canvased on behalf of petitioners does not merit
acceptance and hence the prayer prayed with regard to
restraining the respondents from carrying out demolition
activity of the subject area is hereby rejected.

13. In the opinion of this Court, reliance placed by the
petitioners on Article 14 of the Constitution of India is
misplaced since the present is not a case where the 18
petitioners have been discriminated since demolition has
already been undertaken in respect of all illegal

Page 17 of 18
C/SCA/2301/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026

constructions as stated in the a?davit. Moreover, reliance
placed on Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also
misplaced because though right to life includes right to
shelter, the petitioners cannot claim a vested right for
resettlement and rehabilitation on the very subject
premises, which at the cost of repetition, is a water body-
Govt. Land.

14. Adverting to the prayer of giving alternative
accommodation under rehabilitation scheme of 2010 and
2013 of the State Government, as canvased by learned
advocate for the petitioners, it is open for the petitioners to
make their individual application, if they are so entitled
before the authorities along with required documents and
the same may be considered in accordance with law. The
contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners that
till the time such alternate accommodation is provided, the
demolition may be restrained does not merit acceptance
since the same would amount to perpetuating illegal
occupation/ construction, which would be against the
principles of law.”

13. In relation to petitioners’ right to livelihood and right to shelter,
it is open for the petitioners to make their individual applications with
requisite documents to the authority concerned. In absence of
application made to that eIect, the extinguishment of the petitioners
right to shelter and right to livelihood does not merit acceptance.

14. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has decided similar issue as
involved in the present petition. Hence, in view of the orders passed
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Division Bench of
this Court, I am of the opinion that the petition being meritless
deserves to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There
shall be no order as to costs. Pending civil application/s shall stand
disposed of accordingly.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/03/2026 17:52:02

Page 18 of 18