Latest news with #MaunaBhatt
Indian Express
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Chandola Lake is a water body… no construction can be permitted': Gujarat HC rejects residents' plea against state govt's demolitions
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday refused to stay the state government's demolition of homes and structures around the Chandola Lake in Ahmedabad, noting that doing so 'would amount to perpetuating illegal occupation and construction' and go 'against the principles of law.' In the oral order uploaded on Wednesday, Justice Mauna Bhatt observed that the case involved several allegations by both the petitioners and the State, including references to 'alleged criminal activities' at the site, but that the court was only considering the request related to 'demolition and rehabilitation.' The court also highlighted the state government's submission that the drive was a part of 'public order, safety and national security'. However, at the request of the petitioners' lawyer, Advocate Anand Yagnik, the court granted them time to file a formal rejoinder to the state government's arguments. The petitioners had asked the court for an urgent stay on the demolitions, stating that the area was a notified water body and that people living there had not been given any notice before the demolition began. They also said that families had been living there for many years and should be provided alternate housing under the state government's Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2010 and 2013. The court addressed two main points from the petition: first, that residents were not served demolition notices, and second, that they had a right to resettlement. In response, the court said it was important to look at the Supreme Court's guidelines, from November last year, on demolitions. These guidelines, which the petitioners had relied on, include rules for government demolitions — but also clearly state that those rules do not apply when unauthorised buildings are located on roads, footpaths, railways, rivers, or water bodies. Since the state government confirmed that Chandola Lake is 'admittedly a notified water body' and that 'no civic body has ever given any development permission to any person for construction,' the High Court said the petitioners' argument about not receiving notice 'does not merit acceptance and thus (is) rejected.' On the petitioners' argument that their rights under Article 14 (that deals with equality) and Article 21 (protection of right to protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution were being violated, the court said their claim was 'misplaced,' stating that 'this is not a case where the petitioners have been discriminated (against).' It added that 'though the right to life includes the right to shelter, the petitioners cannot claim a vested right for resettlement and rehabilitation on the very premises… which is a water body and government land.' The court also rejected the argument that more official measurements were needed to prove whether the land was part of the water body. 'It is not disputed that Chandola Lake is a water body and on a water body, no construction can be permitted,' it said. 'The contention raised that without measurement done as per CRZ Notification, petitioners' premises cannot be stated to be on (a) water body, in the opinion of this Court does not merit acceptance.' As for the claim that residents should have been given alternate homes before demolition under the state's rehabilitation policies, the court pointed out that 'no documents' had been produced with the petition to show 'long occupancy'. The court said, 'The documents like Aadhar card, death or birth Certificate, electricity bills, BPL card, etc. are produced by way of a paper-book which refers to petitioners' addresses as Chandola Lake Chhapra, Dani Limda, Ahmedabad. Nothing has been produced to justify the construction of premises with some permission.' However, the court said, 'it is open for the petitioners to make individual applications, if they are so entitled,' and submit the required documents to the authorities under the 2010 and 2013 resettlement policies. Those applications 'may be considered in accordance with law'. The High Court also referred to a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, saying that 'an illegal structure cannot be legitimised 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 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,' the court said.
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
2,000 Ahmedabad shanties razed as HC refuses to stop demolition
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Tuesday refused to stay the demolition drive carried out by the authorities near Chandola Lake, from where the city police rounded up more than 900 persons, suspecting them to be illegal migrants from Bangladesh three days ago. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Eighteen residents of the Siyasatnagar locality at Chandola filed a petition on Monday evening and sought urgent intervention by the HC by staying the demolition, which already began. Justice Mauna Bhatt granted them an urgent hearing on Tuesday when the high court was functioning on account of a public holiday. Their counsel, Anand Yagnik , submitted that the petitioners are Indian citizens and lived in this area for nearly 50 years, and they have ample documents to establish their citizenship. The demolition process was opposed on the ground that the residents were not issued any eviction notice as mandated by the order. It was contended that the petitioners are not the owners of the land, but there is also no demarcation and delimitation map under the CRZ notification to indicate that they are occupying the waterbody. Moreover, it was contended that the residents be given the benefit of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of the State of Gujarat 2010, as amended in 2013, and they should not be evicted without providing alternative accommodation. It was also contended that the demolition drive was undertaken on the pretext of taking action against illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, but such an action is illegal until a competent authority decides about the citizenship of the suspected people. The state govt opposed the plea by arguing that the land occupied is a notified waterbody, and this kind of unauthorised occupation and construction does not warrant any prior eviction notice. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Moreover, it argued that the Chandola locality, according to an intelligence report, is a threat to the security of the state. After hearing the arguments, Justice Mauna Bhatt refused to stay the demolition on the basis of the state govt's contention that the petitioners reside on the notified land. According to an SC judgement, long-standing occupation does not give any right to the illegal encroacher, Advocate Yagnik said. The HC has kept the petition pending, and further hearing will take place in June.
New Indian Express
29-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
'Illegal, arbitrary': Chandola Lake residents slam demolition drive; Gujarat HC refuses to grant relief
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday declined to grant stay on a mega demolition drive undertaken in Ahmedabad's A group of 18 residents of Chandola Lake had challenged the state government's drive to demolish their homes without any notice to the occupants as being "unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary." Civic authorities and police in Ahmedabad launched the demolition drive on Tuesday. Justice Mauna Bhatt refused to stay the demolition drive after observing the dwellings of the petitioners were on the periphery of the water body and as per section 37 of the Land Revenue Code, such structures can be razed by the government, petitioners' lawyer Anand Yagnik said. The court observed that since the petitioners are "illegal encroachers," relief from demolition cannot be granted to them. At the same time, the court noted that if any petitioners are covered under the government's rehabilitation and resettlement policies of 2010 and 2013, they can make a representation to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for consideration, he said. The residents of Chandola Lake moved the HC for stay on the "illegal demolition" on the grounds they were not issued any notice for eviction and demolition, and have lived in the area for the last six decades, having migrated to Ahmedabad from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal in the 1970s. The petitioners argued they had all necessary documents such as ration cards, election ID, and Aadhaar cards, and detention of their family members on suspicion of being Bangladeshi citizens was illegal. They claimed in the petition that they were not served any notice but only informed verbally regarding the initiation of the demolition drive. To carry out such an action without providing them alternative accommodation was against the mandate of law, they contended. To carry out the drive, a "false and fraudulent narrative" was created regarding the nationality of the petitioners as being Bangladeshis and some of their family members were detained, the petitioners maintained. Government Pleader GH Virk argued that matters concerning public safety and national security cannot be subordinated to procedural technicalities. The drive was being taken for maintaining the safety and security of the people of the state at large and also to protect national security, and hence it cannot be hounded by principles of natural justice, he said in his submission. The government counsel further submitted that the demolition was being carried out peacefully, with most structures already abandoned. As per a state government affidavit filed in the court, over the years, the area around Chandola Lake has allegedly become a hub for illegal activities -- ranging from flesh trade and narcotics trafficking to document forgery and even harbouring extremist elements. The state cited the recent arrest of four Bangladeshi nationals linked to an Al-Qaeda module with suspected connections to the lake area as a serious national security red flag. "No legal development permissions were ever granted for any construction inside Chandola Lake, a notified water body," the affidavit stated.
