'Citizen Who Has No Regard For Law Can't Seek Relief': Gujarat HC Refuses To Interfere With Demolition Of Illegally Constructed Property

The Gujarat High Court refused to interfere with demolition action of dwelling units in Ahmedabad's Rangwala Challi, observing the petitioners residing their had carried out construction despite notice asking them stop and had also gone on to break the seal put by authorities to use the property which had no development permission.

Noting the property was located in 300 metre radius of a protected monument, the court underscored the petitioners had taken law in their own hands and such citizens who have no regard to law are not entitled to any relief.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas by various persons for quashing execution of notices issued by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the police directing the petitioners to vacate their respective dwelling units at Rangwala Challi within a period four days, failing which action was to be taken against them as per law.

Though notice had not been issued in the matters pending since 2021, it was heard on urgent circulation on July 15 against coercive action by demolition of properties of the petitioners, situated at Rangwala Challi, now known as “Shana Apartment”, which had started with demolition of the 6th floor.

Justice Mauna M Bhatt in her order observed:

"Thus, if the facts of these cases are compared, it would not be out of place to observe that the petitioners have taken the Law in their hands. Despite earlier intimation under notice dated 1109.2019, to stop the construction they continued with construction breaching the directions. Thereafter, the seal put by the respondents was broken and without challenge to the sealing order, they started using the property in question; without Building Use permission. Thus, once again they breached the directions. Further, despite alleging that developer had cheated and constructed their units without prior permission, till date no action is initiated against developer. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the citizen who has no regards to law, is not entitled to seek any relief under Law, and in this case, it would amount to misplaced sympathy".

The high court further referred to Supreme Court's decision in Kaniz Ahmed V/s. Sabuddin and others where the apex court had underscored that "Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no way out".

The petitioners claimed that they had been living at the location since the past 50 years as tenants/owners and are either unorganized labourers, fruits and vegetable vendors, drivers, rickshaw pullers, daily wagers, foremen, butchers, ac-repairers or small shop owners etc.

It was argued that petitioners along with their families totalling to over 250 to 300 people are currently residing in redeveloped Rangwala Challi. It was argued that the property in question was in extremely dilapidated condition and so notices were issued by Corporation to vacate it.

They claimed that at that time, the tenants were not sure of their possession if they had decided to vacate their respective dwelling units, hence they had filed a suit seeking restrain orders that original owners may not sell the properties to the developer, for redevelopment. But upon a compromise between the parties, the suit was withdrawn.

They withdrew the suit on an assurance given by the developer of giving them possession of their dwelling units back at no additional cost. Accordingly, sale deeds were executed between the petitioners and the developer and therefore petitioners are owners of the property in question having registered sale deed in their favour.

Despite that, notices dated 11.01.2021, were issued by respondent – Corporation, wherein the petitioners were directed to vacate the property in question on account of the unauthorized construction.

The Petitioners contended that they are owners of the property in question, however, they are not aware about whether the developer constructed the property without development permission. Since the petitioners are from poor strata of the society, it would be difficult for them to catch hold of the developer who had cheated them and if the property in question is demolished on account of unauthorised construction, the petitioners would be rendered homeless and their survival would be difficult.

The high court said that the petitioners were informed in 2019 that construction was done without any development permission. Though the corporation granted them time to produce documents justifying their construction, no documents were produced by the petitioners. They had also been restrained from further construction, however, they continued with the same, the court said.

The high court further noted that the petitioners did not challenge the orders of sealing issued in 2019 and 2020.

"In respect to the contention that petitioners were not aware about the construction done by developer without prior permission, it is noticed that impugned Notices were issued in the year 2021, however, no proceedings have been initiated by the petitioners against the developer. The ground raised of filing of suit also is of no help because it was withdrawn by the petitioners. Thus, it was a conscious decision by the petitioners to agree to the settlement and to withdraw the Suit...though the Notice dated 11.01.2021 was served and petition was filed in the year 2021, an application under GRUDA-2022, seeking regularization of unauthorized construction was filed only on 19.02.2025. The said application was rejected by an order dated 01.03.2025 on the ground that property in question is situated within the radius of 300 meters of protected Monument...Therefore, undisputedly, since the property in question is situated within 300 meters of Protected Monument, the case of the petitioners would fall under Section 8(2) of GRUDA-2022, where regularization of unauthorised construction is not permissible. Once the regularization is prohibited under the Act, filing of appeal is of no help to the petitioners," the court said.

The court noted that mandatory permission of National Monuments Authority prior to construction was also absent and the developer's application filed in March this year filed under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, appears to be an afterthought and to frustrate further proceedings.

It thus dismissed the pleas.

Case title: MOHMMAD SARIFVISAD PURVALA & ORS. v/s  AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order