Gujarat High Court Upholds Demolition Drive In Ahmedabad's Chandola Lake Area, Rejects Plea For Rehabilitation

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (April 29) upheld a demolition drive undertaken by state authorities in Ahmedabad's Chandola lake area on Monday (April 28), after observing that the water body is government land and the construction on it was illegal. 

The court was hearing a plea moved by 18 persons seeking to declare the demolition drive undertaken by the State on April 28 Chandola Lake area to be violative of fundamental rights and in breach of principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures and it was prayed that the respondents be restrained from carrying out illegal demolition. 

Justice Mauna M Bhatt in her order observed:

"However, it is not disputed that Chandola 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 Notification, petitioners' premises cannot be stated to be on water body, in the opinion of this Court does not merit acceptance in view of the affidavit 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 affidavit that said land being admittedly a notified water body, no civic body has ever given any development permission to any person/applicant for construction on the lake". 

The court referred to Supreme Court's order in demolition of structures case where apex court had stated,"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". 

The court then said that petitioners' arguments on breach of principles of natural justice by non-issuance of notice prior demolition does not merit acceptance and thus rejected. 

On the petitioners' argument on applicability of rehabilitation and resettlement policy of State government that without giving alternative accommodation the demolition of their houses was illegal, the court said, "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 Certificate, 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". 

The court also referred to Section 37 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, as per which 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," the court said. 

The court further said that the reliance placed by the petitioners on Article 14 of Constitution of India is misplaced since it was not a case where the 18 petitioners have been discriminated since demolition has already been undertaken in respect of all illegal constructions as stated in the affidavit.

"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,"the court added. 

On prayer of giving alternative accommodation under State's rehabilitation the court said that 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," the court noted.

At this stage the counsel for the petitioners requested that since the reply on behalf of State was received prior to the hearing, time may be granted to file rejoinder. 

The court thereafter listed the matter on June 19 granting time to the petitioners to file rejoinder. 

Case title: FULJAHA NOORMOHAMMED SHAIKH & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order