Order of the High Court of Gujarat regarding illegal encroachments in and around Chandola lake, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 06/05/2025
Order of the High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Samsuddin Jainulabiddin Shaikh & Others Vs The State of Gujarat & Others dated 06/05/2025.
A petition was filed by 58 people who are residing near Chandola lake, Ahmedabad. The petitioners have constructed hutments along the periphery of Chandola lake. There are approximately 6500 hutments existing in the area surrounding Chandola lake. The petitioners said that on account of ongoing activity of demolition on and around the area of Chandola lake, residences of the petitioners would be removed. Prior to such removal or demolition of petitioners’ residences, they may be provided with alternative accommodation under rehabilitation scheme, framed by the Gujarat government. The government and municipal corporation are "duty bound to provide alternative accommodation to the slum dwellers / hutments because their houses are going to be removed."
The High Court after going through the submissions and documents on record noted that the petitioners main grievance was that till the time an alternative accommodation under Rehabilitation Scheme of the state government or corporation is provided, the demolition process should be stayed. In the above context, it was further contended that since under the Constitution of India, the petitioners’ have a right to shelter and right to livelihood, the same may not be compromised.
To this the HC, while acknowledging that the petitioners belong to economically weaker section of the society, the act on their part to have illegal and unauthorised constructions on either lake land or government land cannot be ignored. Further, with respect to petitioner’s 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, the court said.
The Gujarat HC referred to the Supreme Court order that said that a person cannot ask for regularization of construction, which is against the rule of law. Unauthorized construction has to be demolished. Therefore, applying the same principle and in absence of any document justifying the construction of the petitioners, the prayer prayed for that demolition should be stayed till rehabilitation of the petitioners being devoid of merits, the same was rejected.