HC denies relief to ‘encroachers’, declines to stay demolition near lake

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday declined to grant stay on a mega demolition drive undertaken in Ahmedabad’s Chandola Lake area from where a large number of dwellers were detained on suspicion they were undocumented Bangladeshi nationals.

Around 50 teams of Ahmedabad civic body equipped with earthmovers launched a massive demolition drive to clear 2,000 illegally built houses and properties from the lake area, days after illegal Bangladeshi immigrants were detained from these settlements.

A group of 18 residents of Chandola Lake had challenged the state government’s drive to remove the encroachments 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.