Gujarat Housing Board residents protest delays, demand action on stalled redevelopment of housing societies
In their memorandum, the residents demanded immediate action from the state government in coordination with the GHB and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. They urged strict enforcement of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, particularly against illegal encroachments and unauthorised constructions by non-compliant members. The letter also criticised the lack of coordinated action among government departments, blaming inter-departmental buck-passing for a 'slowdown'.
The residents also highlighted how each society has been forced to approach the High Court at its own cost, only to face 'indefinite delays and repeated adjournments'. They said they have faith in the judiciary, but called for swift intervention to clear the backlog of redevelopment cases.
The letter named multiple affected societies in West Ahmedabad — Surya Apartment Part-2 (Naranpura), Abhishek Apartment, Amar Suramya, Shastri Nagar,Shanti Ravi, and Unnati, as well as Shraddhadip, Nirmal Apartment, Gokul Sundarvan, Shrinagar Shri Ganesh, Shivalay, Vishram Park, Utsav Hariom Nagar and Kiran Park of Wadaj, — which have been abandoned for four years now. Vaishali Apartment and Parishram Nagar in East Ahmedabad were also mentioned as being caught in prolonged litigation.
The residents described their plight — homelessness, rising rents, displacement, and lack of support from public representatives. Many senior citizens and women have been compelled to protest on the streets, clinging to the dream of owning a home under the government's 75% consent policy, they said, adding that some elderly people have even passed away without witnessing the reconstruction of their homes.
Despite repeated representations to the Chief Minister, GHB Commissioner, and local elected officials, the residents alleged to have not received any positive cooperation or concrete action.
Their letter appealed for fast-tracking long-pending redevelopment cases in the High Court, strict enforcement of demolition and redevelopment laws and reduction of the notice period under Clause 60-A and a time-bound action plan to protect the interests of 75% consenting residents.
Talking to The Indian Express, Sandeep Trivedi, Founder of the Housing Apartment Redevelopment Federation and Chairman of Rameshwaram Apartments, said the state's redevelopment policy has been in place since 2016, but 'due to objections raised by a handful of members from various societies, the entire process has been repeatedly stalled, particularly since 2022″.
He added that during their meeting with the Collector, officials assured them that the administration would share their feedback with the government for any necessary policy revisions.
If no resolution is found, the residents will launch peaceful protests, including hunger strikes and indefinite fasts, with full support from the Housing Apartment Redevelopment Federation, stated their letter.
GHB Commissioner Sandeep B Vasava told this paper that notices have already been issued to non-compliant society members, and eviction orders were also passed. 'However, these individuals exercised their right to appeal under the provisions available to them. Even after losing those appeals, they have now challenged the matter in the High Court. It is currently sub-judice,' he said.
Vasava added that the board received a formal representation from residents, and it will be forwarded to the state government with appropriate recommendations for further action.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of Surendra Koli In Nithari Case, Dismisses CBI Plea
New Delhi: After two decades, a final legal ruling has concluded one of India's most notorious criminal cases. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) plea challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2023 acquittal of Surendra Koli, the prime accused in the gruesome 2006 Nithari serial killings, finding no perversity in the High Court's rulings. The CBI filed the plea for the Uttar Pradesh government and a victim's family, seeking to overturn the High Court's 2023 ruling that acquitted Koli because of insufficient evidence. The Court emphasized that only recoveries from places exclusively accessible to the accused can be admitted as evidence. It noted that the recovery of victims' skulls and belongings from an open drain was not based on Koli's statement, and recoveries made without recording the accused's statement are inadmissible under evidence law. The Nithari killings emerged in 2006 when human remains were found in a drain outside a Noida home. These murders shocked India due to their brutality. The case involved the killings of several children and young women and included horrifying claims of rape, cannibalism, and neglect, capturing public attention. Surendra Koli, a domestic worker, and his employer, Moninder Singh Pandher, were initially convicted. However, the Allahabad High Court acquitted them in 2023, stating that the prosecution had not proven their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" and described the investigation as "botched up." The emotional impact on the victims' families is unfathomable. For the defence, the ruling represents a triumph of due process. Manisha Bhandari, the lawyer representing Pandher, who was also acquitted, expressed relief at the verdict. Bhandari told NDTV, "We started in 2009. In 2025, it's finally over. They filed appeals, but they've all been dismissed. I'm still processing it." The Nithari killings sparked widespread outrage and raised serious questions about investigative lapses. In its 2023 ruling, the Allahabad High Court, while overturning the death sentences given to Koli in 12 cases and Pandher in two cases, called the probe "nothing short of a betrayal of public trust by responsible agencies." A total of 19 cases were lodged against the duo in 2007. The CBI filed closure reports in three cases because of insufficient evidence. Koli was found not guilty in three of the 16 remaining cases, and his death sentence in one case was changed to life imprisonment. Advocate Pramod Kumar remarked, "The suffering of the victims is undeniable and represents a significant loss to the nation. Accountability must be fixed. The investigation was not conducted properly, resulting in a lack of evidence. The courts have delivered concurrent judgments. The case has reached finality due to lapses by the prosecution and investigative agencies, which failed to meet judicial scrutiny."
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
SC questions Justice Varma's conduct, says he moved the apex court only after in-house inquiry results became ‘unpalatable'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) questioned the conduct of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, saying he had moved the Supreme Court against the in-house inquiry procedure initiated by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna only after the outcome of the probe had become 'unpalatable' for him. The report of an in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed the presence of 'burnt currency' in a gutted outhouse at Justice Varma's residential premises in New Delhi after a fire in mid-March. The in-house inquiry, appointed by the then Chief Justice Khanna, had recommended his removal. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister in May, seconding the recommendation of the inquiry panel. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih said the in-house procedure was carefully devised through multiple Supreme Court judgments as a mechanism to preserve the institutional integrity and moral vigour of the judiciary. Article 141 of the Constitution made apex court judgments binding on all. Justice Datta said the in-house procedure had been in existence for over 30 years now. Every High Court or Supreme Court judge, including Justice Varma, knew since the time of taking the oath of office that she or he would be subject to a probe if the situation called for it. The Chief Justice of India was not a 'post office' to blindly pass on complaints or allegations to the Parliament, Justice Datta said. The Bench explained the in-house procedure was meant to fill a 'yawning gap'. It was a procedure in which a CJI-appointed committee held a preliminary inquiry into the allegations in order for the CJI to take an informed decision, and if required, recommend the removal of a judge. The Bench said Justice Varma, having once submitted to the jurisdiction of the in-house panel, could not turn back and call it 'illegal'. 'Once the High Court judge has submitted to the in-house inquiry procedure, he has to accept the outcome. His conduct does not inspire. He has challenged the procedure once the outcome became unpalatable,' Justice Datta said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said if the in-house procedure was so sacrosanct, what was the need for a motion in the Parliament. The former alone would suffice to remove a judge. He argued Articles 124 (4) and (5), and Article 218 provided a complete mechanism for removal of a judge. 'Any other mechanism is outside the Constitution,' Mr. Sibal said. He urged the point that Justice Varma had no other place except the Supreme Court to challenge the in-house inquiry and the recommendation to remove him. 'The High Court judge cannot challenge the in-house inquiry report, which has triggered the removal motion, in the Parliament. That is why I have come to the Supreme Court now,' Mr. Sibal submitted on behalf of Justice Varma. He contended that the in-house inquiry process was only an 'informal, administrative exercise' with no strict or codified standards of evidence, unlike the probe under the Judges Inquiry Act. 'Yet, the in-house inquiry report and the CJI's recommendation for removal has sounded the death-knell… become a trigger and a prompt for the removal of the High Court judge. It is evident that the report and the recommendation of the CJI has more than a persuasive value as the Parliament has already commenced his removal motion,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The senior lawyer said the CJI had only a moral and ethical power over other judges. He could not embark on a probe against a judge and recommend the latter's removal. However, Justice Datta referred Mr. Sibal to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Section 3(2) provided the Centre, State, Supreme Court, a High Court or any other other authority 'to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a judge'. Justice Datta asked whether in-house procedure would come under the ambit of 'otherwise' in the provision. 'If so, the CJI has not only moral and ethical but also legal power too,' Justice Datta observed. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also on behalf of Justice Varma, said that in earlier cases of in-house procedure, the judge in question was given an opportunity to present his views before and after the in-house inquiry report. But this had not been followed in the current case. The Bench reserved judgment on the petition challenging the validity of the in-house procedure against Justice Varma, and the subsequent recommendation of Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) to remove him. The court also reserved a decision on advocate Mathews Nedumpara's petition seeking registration of a criminal case against the High Court judge. Justice Datta had asked Mr. Nedumpara whether he had even filed a complaint before the police for the registration of a First Information Report.
New Indian Express
8 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Delhi HC upholds conviction of Patkar in two-decade-old defamation case
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the conviction of social activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena over two decades ago. Justice Shalinder Kaur ruled that there was no error in the trial court and appellate court decisions that found Patkar guilty. The court also agreed with the earlier decision to release Patkar on probation rather than jail her. However, the High Court gave her some relief by modifying the probation condition that required her to appear before the trial court every three months. Now, she can either appear virtually or be represented by a lawyer. The case dates back to the year 2000, when Saxena, then President of an organisation called National Council of Civil Liberties, had published an advertisement criticising Patkar's Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a movement against dam construction on river Narmada. In response, Patkar issued a press note alleging that Saxena had earlier supported the NBA and had even donated Rs 40,000 through a cheque from the Lalbhai Group, which later bounced. The press note also questioned Saxena's patriotism and claimed he was acting as an agent for the Gujarat government. Saxena filed a defamation case against Patkar in Ahmedabad in 2001. The Supreme Court later transferred the case to Delhi in 2003. In 2024, Patkar was found guilty by a magistrate court, sentenced to five months in jail, and asked to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation. The court said her statements were made with clear intention to harm Saxena's reputation. On April 2, 2024, a Sessions Court upheld her conviction but reduced the punishment. Patkar was released on probation for one year and asked to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation instead of Rs 10 lakh. She challenged the conviction in the High Court, which has now upheld it. What led to the Saxena- Patkar spat After Vinai Saxena published an ad criticizing Patkar's NBA, she issued a press note alleging that Saxena had earlier supported the NBA and had even donated Rs 40,000 through a cheque from the Lalbhai Group, which later bounced. The press note also questioned Saxena's patriotism, which led to the defamation case filed by Saxena.
