Gujarat High Court Reserves Verdict On Pleas Against Proposed Eviction For Road Widening Project As Part Of 2036 Olympic Bid Plan

The Gujarat government on Wednesday (May 28) opposed pleas before the High Court challenging orders directing occupants of certain plots to vacate and hand over possession to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in 7 days failing which their eviction is proposed under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act.

Notably it was argued by the State that it is widening the road near the Narendra Modi stadium in Ahmedabad, where the petitioners are also located, for overall infrastructural development as part of India's bid for the 2036 Summer Olympics.

A vacation bench of Justice J L Odedra after hearing the parties reserved its verdict in the matter. 

"Heard learned advocates for the parties. Reserved for orders," the court said.

The court was hearing two pleas. One of the pleas challenges a May 21 order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer directing the petitioners therein to hand over "actual vacant possession" of the concerned land mentioned within 7 days to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation failing which the petitioners' eviction by the authority is proposed as per Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act read with Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules.

During the hearing today, state's counsel while opposing the plea submitted that due process has been followed. He said that the petitioners are contending that plot is reserved for slum upgradation. He said that final plot no. 486, the area in question will not be touched and that the authorities were concerned only with the town planning scheme, the proposed road line and nothing more. 

"The town planning scheme was finalised more than 30-35 years ago. A town planning scheme is always implemented progressively as the needs of the city grow. It can always be implemented as the need arises. It is required for the widening of the Olympic road. In my submission, nothing survives. The solitary factual contention of petitioner was that FP 486 was forming part of slum upgradation. I have made it abundantly clear that I wont touch FP 486. Infact my instructions are that parties who are forming part of FP 486 have been surveryed and will get accomodation if they qualify under slum act. Therefore petition needs to be dismissed," he said. 

It was further argued by the State, "Normally smallest road in town planning (TP) scheme is 9 metre. 24 metre proposed road is big sized road which will accomodate transit. This is where stadium is located. Preliminary TP scheme sanctioned in 1983. Final town planning scheme sanctioned in 1983 comes into effect in 1984".

The counsel further said, "Right from the earliest point of time the petition file is berft of showing any objection taken to the framing, notification or the entire process of town planning scheme. Therefore petitioners had consciously chosen not to participate or challenge the town planning shceme at any stafe and today with the advancement of the scheme it has become an irreversible situation. Therefore your lordship will have to balance the public interest, vis-a-vis an individual interest. Today after more than 40 years petition is filed challenging the scheme; it is barred by delay and laches". 

Meanwhile the petitioners' in one of the petitions argued that the land was private land, owned by original owner and was later on purchased by the petitioners' who had and paid the original owner. The petiitoners' counsel argued that the petitioners have been in possession and have residential property since decades. 

It was argued that the Town Planning (TP) scheme is sought to be implemented against the petitioners' after 41 years on the ground of proposal to construct the road, adding that this indicates that there was no need for public road for 41 years since action was being taken only now. 

It was argued that the road is proposed through fully constructed area, constructions which has been there for 50 years. He argued that this is why TP scheme was not implemented for such a long time because the state authorities know that these constructions have been there for 50 years. 

"They are directing me to hand over possession within 10 days on one hand and on the other hand I have been told that you can submit objections in 7 days. We have submitted objections. In these objections we said that estate development officer has no jurisdicition to initiate the eviction under Section 68 of the Act. There is existing construction even when TP scheme came into force. The proposed road is to be made in a fully constructed area. If this proposal is implemented 100s of properties of residential houses will be needed to be demolished," the counsel said.

He further argued that the order must go on ground of not dealing with the petitioners' objections and violation of principles of natural justice. He further argued that the order is against the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures where he argued that the Supreme Court had given certain directions which were not followed in the present case.

"Here we are not on the road, the road has come on us. The final order shall contain contentions of the noticee; here the reasons are not assigned, objections are not considered and thus matter must be remanded back to the authority," the counsel said. 

Case title: UMESH PRAVINBHAI MAKWANA & ORS. v/s State of Gujarat and connected petition

R/SCA/7325/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order