'Illegal Construction Can't Be Ignored': Gujarat HC Rejects Plea To Stay Demolition Drive At Chandola Lake Till Residents Are Rehabilitated

In a plea by 58 individuals residing in Ahmedabad's Chandola Lake whose hutments were removed during the demolition drive by the state authorities last month, the Gujarat High Court remarked that the residents act of having "illegal and unauthorised constructions" on Lake Land cannot be "ignored".

While the court "rejected" the petitioners' plea for stay of further demolition till rehabilitation is granted as "devoid of merits", the court however said that it is open for the petitioners to approach the authorities with individual applications for rehabilitation. 

The plea sought a direction to the respondents–the State, Collector and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation(AMC), to provide rehabilitation and alternate accommodation as per the Government policies and also consider representation their representation for the same. As interim relief, the petitioners sought that until the plea is finally adjudicated, the AMC be restrained from undertaking any further demolition of their premises situated near Chandola Lake.

Justice Mauna M Bhatt in her order observed that the petitioners had primarily contended that till the time an alternative accommodation under Rehabilitation Scheme of the State Government or Corporation is provided, the demolition process may be stayed. The court however said:

"In the above context, it is 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 Court, 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...Importantly, not a single document is annexed with the petitions justifying the construction and occupation either on Lake Land or Government Land, and this aspect has been considered by this Court in earlier order dated 29.04.2025 in Special Civil Application No.6119 of 2025". 

For context, the court had in its April 29 order, while considering a plea by certain residents challenging April 28 demolition drive in the same area, had remarked that Chandola Lake is a water body and on a water body, no construction can be permitted and that the petitioners therein had produced nothing to justify the construction of premises with some permission. The court had thus said that the construction therein was "illegal". 

"Moreover, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision that a person cannot pray 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 may be stayed till rehabilitation of the petitioners, being devoid of merits, the same is rejected," the high court added. 

The court further said that reliance placed by the petitioners herein on a communication regarding demarcation and identification of the nature of the premises as residential, commercial of religious, to drive home their contention of granting stay till the time such process is complete is misplaced also because all these communications are "internal" and is not addressed to the petitioners. This the court said  "makes the source of procurement of such communications doubtful". 

It further said that in respect of petitioners' right to livelihood and right to shelter, it is open for them to make their individual applications with requisite documents to the authority concerned.

Disposing of the plea the court said, "However, in relation to the prayer of the petitioners to consider them to provide alternative accommodation under the rehabilitation Scheme of the State Government, it is directed that it is open for the petitioners to make their individual applications, if they are eligible, along with requisite documents to respondents. Once such individual applications are filed, the authority shall consider the same in accordance with law".

The petitioners had argued that they all belong to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of the society and had come to the city seeking livelihood. Having been not able to afford rented roof or shelter, the petitioners had constructed hutments along the periphery of Chandola Lake and residing there since more than 60 years. They said that on account of ongoing activity of demolition on and around area of Chandola lake, and residences of the petitioners being likely to be removed, prior to such removal or demolition of petitioners' residences, they may be provided with alternative accommodation under rehabilitation Scheme, framed by the State Government.

The State contended that after initiation of removal of unauthorized/ illegal construction of the premises on and in the area of Chandola Lake, not a single application is filed by the petitioners' seeking rehabilitation. The State said that the documents provided by the petitioners to demonstrate long possession showed discrepancies. It however said that if the petitioners make individual applications along with requisite documents, the authority shall consider the cases as per extant policy.

Case title:  SAMSUDDIN JAINULABIDDIN SHAIKH & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 67