{"id":198287,"date":"2010-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-30T09:55:15","modified_gmt":"2018-09-30T04:25:15","slug":"ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/11947\/2009\t 38\/ 38\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 11947 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2158 of 2010\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2265 of 2010 \n\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2376 of 2010\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2390 of 2010\n \n \nFor Approval and\nSignature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n4 \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tit is to be  circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nAJMALBHAI\nRAMJIBHAI RABARI & 266 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSI NANAVATI SR.ADV. WITH MR VIVEK N MAPARA WITH  MS ANUJA S NANAVATI\nfor\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 267. \nMR PRAKASH K.JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER\nWITH MR M.R. MENGDEY A.G.P. for Respondent(s) : 1-3, \nMR RM CHHAYA\nfor Respondent(s) :\n4, \n=========================================================\n\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nCOMMON\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
As
\n\tcommon question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions
\n\tand as such all the petitioners  of Special
\n\tCivil Application Nos. 2158 to 2265 of 2010 with
\n\tSpecial
\n\tCivil Application Nos. 2376 to 2390 of 2010, are
\n\tpetitioners in Special
\n\tCivil Application No. 11947 of 2009, who have filed
\n\tsubsequently individual petitions, all these petitions are being
\n\tdisposed of by this common judgement and order.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tall these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
\n\tthe respective petitioners   have prayed for an appropriate writ,
\n\torder and\/or directions permanently restraining the respondents
\n\tand\/or their officers, agents, servants etc. from evicting or
\n\tdispossessing  the petitioners   or any of the residents of land
\n\tbearing Survey No.14, Town
\n\tPlanning Scheme No. 1, Final
\n\tPlot No. 41 situated at Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad. It is also
\n\tfurther prayed for an appropriate writ, order and\/or direction
\n\tdirecting the respondents  to offer  alternative living space to
\n\teach of the residents  of the land bearing City Survey No.14, Town
\n\tPlanning Scheme No. 1, Final
\n\tPlot No. 41, situated at Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad and
\n\trehabilitate them  adequately  before directing them to hand over
\n\tthe possession of the land which is in their possession.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.S.I.\n<\/p>\n
\tNanavati, learned Senior Advocate  appearing with Mr.Vivek N.
\n\tMapara, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners
\n\tand Mr.Prakash Jani, learned Government Pleader has appeared on
\n\tbehalf of the State authorities   respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
\n\tMr.R.M. Chhaya, learned advocate  has appeared on behalf of the
\n\trespondent No.4   Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that they are in
\n\tpossession of the land in question since last more than 45 years and
\n\tare residing in the said land by constructing \/ putting up small
\n\thuts \/ rooms and  their names  have also been entered into Voters
\n\tList. That the respective petitioners   are also having Ration
\n\tCards. It is the case on behalf of the respective petitioners   that
\n\tthe land in question is not reserved  for any  purpose under the
\n\tTown Planning Scheme
\n\tnor the same is a Gauchar Land nor the said land is on  Government
\n\troad. It is submitted that  the adjoining to the said land, there
\n\tare housing societies and residential complexes.  It is also the
\n\tcase on behalf of the respective petitioners   that earlier the
\n\tland in question was under Ghatlodia Gram Panchayat and at present
\n\tthe said land comes within the Municipal limits of respondent No.4
\n\tAhmedabad Municipal Corporation. That according to the petitioners,
\n\tthe petitioners   – hutment dwellers have been residing in the said
\n\tland since the time of Ghatlodia Gram Panchayat and have been paying
\n\ttaxes\/cess since then and at present also taxes\/cess of the
\n\tAhmedabad Municipal Corporation are being paid by the respective
\n\tpetitioners. It is also the case on behalf of the respective
\n\tpetitioners that they are also provided with basic facilities  like
\n\telectricity, street light, drainage, drinking water facility etc. <\/p>\n
According
\n\tto the petitioners, at the time when the Ghatlodia Gram Panchayat
\n\twas in existence, a Resolution was passed on 20\/9\/1978 to give
\n\talternative land to the hutment dwellers of the said land and only
\n\tthereafter to undertake the procedure of eviction. It is submitted
\n\tthat various representations were made to the respondent authorities
\n\tand State authorities along with the recommendations of the
\n\tappropriate authority recommending the State Government to give the
\n\tsaid land to the hutment dwellers who are residing in the area since
\n\tlast 40 years. It is submitted  that despite the various
\n\trepresentations the respective petitioners   are not provided
\n\talternative accommodation and without providing alternative
\n\taccommodation, they are likely to be dispossessed. It is submitted
\n\tthat the respective petitioners were issued notices for eviction by
\n\tthe respondent authorities. It is submitted that earlier the
\n\trespondent authorities had issued notices for eviction to the
\n\tpetitioners   in the year 1987 against which  some of the
\n\tpetitioners have preferred Civil Suit being Civil
\n\tSuit No.15 of 1987  and thereafter no action was taken by the
\n\tauthorities in pursuance o the said eviction notices.  That
\n\tthereafter in the year 2005 another eviction notices were issued by
\n\tthe authorities, against which another Civil Suit being Civil
\n\tSuit No.696 of 2005 has been preferred by some of the
\n\tpetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis the case on behalf of the petitioners   that one  Jan Adhikar
\n\tSangh  also filed a public interest litigation petition before
\n\tthis Court being Special
\n\tCivil Application No. 21508 of 2005, against issuance
\n\tof the eviction notices in the year 2005 and this Hon’ble Court
\n\tgranted stay order restraining the respondent authorities from
\n\tevicting the hutment dwellers from the said land. However, it came
\n\tto the knowledge of the petitioners from the reliable sources that
\n\tthe respondent authorities have passed an order to demolish\/remove
\n\tthe huts of the petitioners   and therefore the petitioners
\n\tinquired into the matter and on inquiry the petitioners   learnt
\n\tthat the said Special
\n\tCivil Application has been dismissed by this Hon’ble
\n\tCourt vide order dtd.16\/12\/2008 on the technical ground of
\n\tnon-joinder of necessary parties. It is also the case of the
\n\tpetitioners   that since the stay granted by this Hon’ble Court  has
\n\tbeen vacated,  the respondent authorities have initiated action for
\n\teviction of the hutment dwellers without providing alternative
\n\taccommodation and hence the petitioners   have preferred present
\n\tSpecial
\n\tCivil Application  under Article
\n\t226 of the  Constitution of India,  for the aforesaid
\n\treliefs.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.S.I.\n<\/p>\n
\tNanavati, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\trespective parties has vehemently submitted that the respective
\n\tpetitioners   are staying with their families since last more than
\n\t45 years on the land in question and in fact, there are more than
\n\t300 families residing on  the said land. It is submitted that the
\n\trespective petitioners and their family members are very poor and
\n\tlandless people and they cannot be evicted from their residence
\n\twithout providing alternative accommodation.  It is submitted that
\n\tto remove\/evict the petitioners   from the residences would be
\n\tagainst Article 21 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.S.I.\n<\/p>\n
\tNanavati,learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\trespective petitioners  has further submitted that the hutment
\n\tdwellers have constructed the huts on the Government land and the
\n\thutment dwellers are residing in the huts and they are given all
\n\tcivic amenities since last many years. It is submitted that if the
\n\tGovernment requires the land in question for some specific public
\n\tpurpose, in that case also it would be bounden duty of the public
\n\tinstitution to treat the residents with dignities and compassion.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.S.I.\n<\/p>\n
\tNanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\trespective petitioners has heavily relied upon the decision of the
\n\tHon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court   in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal
\n\tCorporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Others,  reported
\n\tin (1997) 11 SCC 121 in support of his prayer to direct the
\n\trespondents  not to evict the respective petitioners   until they
\n\thave been provided alternative accommodation. It is submitted by
\n\tMr.Nanavati, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\trespective petitioners   that after the decision of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of Nawab Khan
\n\tGulab Khan and Others (supra), the Ahmedabad  Municipal
\n\tCorporation has now framed the Scheme with respect to slum dwellers,
\n\tas provided in clause 16.2 of the General Development Control Rules
\n\t( GDCR  for short) of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and if
\n\tthe encroachers are residing since prior to 1991 census, they are
\n\tentitled to accommodation on the very plot encroached upon by them.
\n\tIt is submitted that as the respective petitioners   are residing \/
\n\tstaying on the land in question since prior to 1991 census, they
\n\tcome within the definition of slum dwellers and therefore, entitled
\n\tto alternative accommodation on the very land encroached by them.
\n\tTherefore, it is submitted that as per the Scheme, the respective
\n\tpetitioners   are eligible to be rehabilitated  on the same plot.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis further submitted by Mr.S.I. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate
\n\tthat even the respective petitioners   are not served with notices
\n\twith respect to removal and no opportunity has been given to the
\n\trespective petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be
\n\tevicted from the land in question.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.S.I.\n<\/p>\n
\tNanavati, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\tpetitioners  has also relied upon the recent decision of the
\n\tDivision Bench of this Court in the case of Intajamuddin
\n\tYasinbhai Ansari & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
\n\treported in 2009 (1)
\n\tGLR 659, by submitting that  as observed by the Division Bench
\n\tthe question with respect to rehabilitation of the encroachers who
\n\thave encroached upon the Government land for residential purpose is
\n\trequired to be seen as a humanitarian  problem and is required to be
\n\tconsidered sympathetically. It is submitted that  in the said
\n\tdecision the Division Bench directed the respective respondent
\n\tauthorities not to evict he petitioners until they are provided with
\n\talternative accommodation.  By making above submissions and relying
\n\tupon the above decisions it is requested to allow the present
\n\tSpecial
\n\tCivil Applications.\n<\/p>\n
All
\n\tthese petitions are opposed by Mr.Prakash K. Jani, learned
\n\tGovernment Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3
\n\tand Mr.R.M. Chhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\trespondent No.4. A detailed Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed on
\n\tbehalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, affirmed by the Mamlatdar, City
\n\tAhmedabad. It is submitted that as such the land in question is a
\n\tGauchar land which has been encroached upon by the respective
\n\tpetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis the case on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and so stated in
\n\tthe Affidavit-in-reply that the land in dispute was originally a
\n\tGauchar land and it was vested in the Ghatlodia Gram Panchayat,
\n\thowever on 20\/8\/1982 the land came to be resumed by the State
\n\tGovernment due to the inability on the part of the Gram Panchayat to
\n\tpreserve the said land. Thus, in the year 1982 the land was again
\n\tvested in the State Government. Some persons unauthorisedly
\n\tencroached upon the land and therefore on 1\/9\/1984 the Mamlatdar,
\n\tCity passed order under sec.61 directing the encroachers to remove
\n\ttheir encroachment.  The said order was challenged at the relevant
\n\ttime by the trespassers on the land by way of filing Civil Suit
\n\tNo.15 of 1987 before the  learned Civil Judge (SD), Narol, Ahmedabad
\n\tRural. It is the case on behalf of the respondents that in the said
\n\tsuit, the plaintiffs failed to obtain any interim injunction from
\n\tthe competent civil court. That the said suit was pending till the
\n\tyear 2004 and in the year 2004 the said suit has been dismissed for
\n\tnon-prosecution. It is the case on behalf  of the respondents that
\n\ton 14\/3\/2005 out of  originally 61 plaintiffs, 54 persons filed
\n\tMisc. Civi Application  No.88 of 2004 seeking restoration   of the
\n\tCivil Suit No.15 of 1987 which came to be allowed and the said Civil
\n\tSuit No.15 of 1987 is restored and the said suit is till today
\n\tpending before the learned Civil Judge (SD), Ahmedabad Rural.
\n\tHowever, the plaintiffs have failed to obtained any interim
\n\tprotection in the said suit. It is the case on behalf of the
\n\trespective respondents that again in the year 2005, the
\n\tencroachers\/trespassers were served with notices under sec.202 of
\n\tthe Bombay Land Revenue Code and around 59 persons had filed Civil
\n\tSuit No.696 of 2005 before the learned Civil Judge (SD), Ahmedabad
\n\tRural and in the said suit, the concerned persons could not obtain
\n\tany protection or any interim relief in their favour. That the
\n\taforesaid Civil Suit No.696 of 2005  is also pending before the
\n\ttrial court.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that
\n\ta direction was issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
\n\tSpecial
\n\tCivil Application No.1982 of 2004 wherein encroachment
\n\ton the Government land was challenged before this Court and the
\n\tlearned Single Judge issued direction to the State Government to
\n\tstrictly implement Circular dtd.26\/2\/2004, by which direction was
\n\tissued to the various authorities to see that there is no
\n\tencroachment on the Gauchar land and immediate steps to be taken for
\n\tremoval of the same. It is submitted that  along with Special
\n\tCivil Application No. 1982 of 2004 several other
\n\tpetitions were also disposed of by the Division Bench by common
\n\torder dtd.28\/6\/2006 and by the said common order Special
\n\tCivil Application No. 13938 of 2005 was also disposed
\n\tof, which pertains to the land in dispute. Therefore, it is
\n\tsubmitted that the directions are already issued by the Division
\n\tBench of this Court to remove the encroachment made on the disputed
\n\tland.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis submitted on behalf of the respondents that they deny that the
\n\trespective petitioners   who are alleged to be approximately 267
\n\tpersons are residing since last more than 45 years. It is submitted
\n\tthat when even the first Civil Suit was filed in the year 1987, it
\n\twas filed by only 61 persons who alleged to have encroached upon the
\n\tland in question. Thus, in the year 1987 only 61 persons were
\n\tresiding on the disputed land. It is further submitted that as such
\n\ton 6\/3\/2009 the Talati-cum-Mantri of the Ghatlodia Gram Panchayat
\n\thas drawn Panchnama after   inspection  and it is found that most of
\n\tthe encroachers have constructed various rooms, which they have
\n\trented to various persons and many of the encroachers are residing
\n\tat different place and they do not occupy rooms constructed by them
\n\ton the disputed land.  It is submitted that, in fact, the persons
\n\twho are actually occupying the rooms constructed on the land in
\n\tquestion are different than the present petitioners. It is submitted
\n\tthat on perusal of the Voters List  prepared in the year 2009 it
\n\tbecomes clear that most of the persons who are  actually occupying
\n\tthe rooms have not come before this Court and the persons who have
\n\tcome before this Court are not actually occupying the rooms
\n\tconstructed on the disputed land. In support of his above
\n\tsubmissions, the respective respondents have given one example of
\n\tpetitioner
\n\t No.2   Amratbhai Khengarbhai Rabari, who is
\n\tresiding in Karmacharinagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited. It
\n\tis submitted that in fact, the said Amratbhai has constructed in all
\n\t29 rooms and all the rooms have been leased out by him to different
\n\tpersons. It is further submitted that even the respective
\n\tencroachers have  constructed not only the rooms but some shops are
\n\talso constructed.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis further submitted on behalf of the respondents that merely
\n\tbecause  some basic facilities are given to the encroachers,
\n\tautomatically they do not get any right to get the alternative
\n\taccommodation and\/or on that basis they cannot pray that they cannot
\n\tbe evicted.\n<\/p>\n
With
\n\trespect to reliance placed upon the Resolution passed by Ghatlodia
\n\tGram Panchayat not to evict the encroachers till alternative
\n\taccommodation is given, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents
\n\tthat as such the land in question was given to the Gram Panchayat as
\n\ta Gauchar land and it was found that the Gram Panchayat failed to
\n\tprotect the Gauchar land and permitted encroachers to encroach upon
\n\tthe Gauchar land and precisely for that reason, the land came to be
\n\tagain resumed by the State Government.  At the time of resuming the
\n\tland again by the State Government, it was found that the Gram
\n\tPanchayat failed to remove the encroachment by taking steps under
\n\tsec.105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. Therefore, it is submitted
\n\tthat in view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners   cannot claim
\n\tright to get alternative accommodation  on the basis of the
\n\taforesaid Resolution of the Gram Panchayat which is absolutely
\n\tillegal.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.P.K.\n<\/p>\n
\tJani, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
\n\trespondent Nos.1 to 3 has further submitted that in view of the
\n\tpendency of the two civil suits and considering the fact that the
\n\trespective plaintiffs  who are also some of the petitioners
\n\tin these petitions, have failed to get interim
\n\tprotection, it is requested to dismiss the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.P.K.\n<\/p>\n
\tJani, learned Government Pleader has heavily relied upon the
\n\tdecision of the Division Bench in the case of Association of
\n\tCabin Holdersof Karchelia Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
\n\treported in 2007 (1) GLR 826; unreported  decision of the
\n\tlearned Single Judge in Special
\n\tCivil Application No.6937 of 1999 and other
\n\tcognate Special
\n\tCivil Applications as well as observations made by the
\n\tDivision Bench in the order passed in Special
\n\tCivil Application No. 8121 of 2003 in support of
\n\this submission that as observed by this Court in the aforesaid
\n\tdecisions to say that the encroachers cannot be evicted without
\n\tproviding alternative accommodation sites would be giving a premium
\n\tto illegality and wrong doers.\n<\/p>\n
Now,
\n\twith respect to the contentions on behalf of the petitioners   that
\n\tthe impugned action is without issuing any notices and\/or without
\n\tfollowing the principles of natural justice is concerned, Mr.Jani,
\n\tlearned Government Pleader has submitted that as such there are no
\n\taverments in the petition with respect to the same. It is submitted
\n\tthat it is not the case on behalf of the petitioners   in the
\n\tpetition that no notices have been issued and\/or the action is
\n\tagainst the principles of natural justice.  It is submitted that
\n\teven otherwise as can be seen that even in the year 1987 and
\n\tthereafter in the year 2005 also, the persons who were found to have
\n\tencroached upon the land in question were served with the notices,
\n\tagainst which they have filed the aforesaid two Civil Suits. It is
\n\tsubmitted  that as such against those persons who were found to be
\n\tin possession and who had encroached upon the land in question were
\n\tinitially served with the notices under sec.61 of the Bombay Land
\n\tRevenue Code and thereafter, notices under sec.202 of the Bombay
\n\tLand Revenue Code. Therefore, it is submitted that it cannot be said
\n\tthat the impugned action is illegal and\/or without following the
\n\tprocedure and\/or is against the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe submissions made by Mr.S.I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate
\n\twith respect to clause 16.2 of the GDCR and the alleged scheme  of
\n\tthe concerned respondents with respect to slum dwellers who have
\n\tencroached upon the land prior to 1991 census, Mr.Jani, learned
\n\tGovernment Pleader as well as Mr.Chhaya, learned advocate appearing
\n\ton behalf of the respondent No.4 have submitted that as such there
\n\tare no averments in the petition either with respect to clause 16.2
\n\tof the GDCR or with respect to any Scheme framed by the Government
\n\tand\/or the Corporation. It is submitted that even the reliance
\n\tplaced  upon clause 16.2 of the GDCR is absolutely misplaced and on
\n\tmisinterpretation of clause 16.2 of the GDCR.  It is submitted that
\n\tClause 16.2 of the GDCR  is not with respect to slum dwellers who
\n\thave encroached upon the Government land and\/or   any land and to
\n\tprovide alternative accommodation to them on the very land as
\n\talleged. It is submitted that clause 16.2 of the GDCR   pertains to
\n\tgiving additional benefit to the owners of the land whose land have
\n\tbeen encroached upon and who want to use 50% of the  land for such
\n\tencroachers \/ slum dwellers  and it provides that if 50% land is
\n\tused for such hutment dwellers, in that case, they are entitled to
\n\tadditional F.S.I. Therefore, it is submitted that the claim on
\n\tbehalf of the respective petitioners relying upon clause 16.2 of the
\n\tGDCR that  they should be provided alternative accommodation on the
\n\tvery land in question is absolutely misplaced and it cannot be
\n\tgranted. By making above submissions and relying upon the above
\n\tdecisions it is requested to dismiss the present Special
\n\tCivil Application.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties
\n\tat length.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis an admitted position that  all the respective petitioners have
\n\tencroached upon the land in question and they are rank trespassers.
\n\tIt is the case on behalf of the petitioners   that the land in
\n\tquestion is Government Waste Land and on the other hand, it is the
\n\tcase on behalf of the respondents that it is a Gauchar land. Without
\n\tentering into the larger question as to whether it is a Gauchar land
\n\tor Government Waste Land, as such it does not make any vital
\n\tdifference. Even otherwise, it cannot be disputed that the
\n\tmanagement of the land in question was given to Ghatlodia Gram
\n\tPanchayat  as the Gauchar land. The Ghatlodia Gram Panchayat  failed
\n\tto protect the said Gauchar land in question and there were
\n\tencroachments found on the land in question by approximately  61
\n\tpersons and the Ghatlodia Gram Panchayat at the relevant time failed
\n\tto take action of removal of encroachment under sec.105 of the
\n\tGujarat Panchayats Act. Therefore,  the said land came to be again
\n\tresumed by the State Government and vested in the State Government.
\n\tIn view of the above, the reliance placed upon the Resolution of the
\n\tGhatlodia Gram Panchayat at the relevant time resolving not to evict
\n\tthe encroachers until they are provided alternative accommodation,
\n\tshall not be of any assistance to the petitioners. The respective
\n\tpetitioners   cannot\u00a0 rely upon such an illegal  resolution for
\n\twhich even the land in question came to be again resumed by the
\n\tState Government.  It is an admitted position that 61  persons who
\n\tare some of the petitioners  herein were  served with the notices
\n\tunder sec.61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in the year 1987 and
\n\tthey also filed Civil Suit No.15 of 1987 but did not get any interim
\n\tprotection. The said suit is still pending. Again some other 61
\n\tpersons were served with notices under sec.202 of the Bombay Land
\n\tRevenue Code  which has given rise to file the Civil Suit No.696 of
\n\t2005  and the said plaintiffs have also failed to get any interim
\n\tprotection from the learned trial court. Both the aforesaid civil
\n\tsuits are still  pending. In view of the pendency of the aforesaid
\n\tcivil suits, as such present petitions are not required to be
\n\tentertained.\n<\/p>\n
Even
\n\ton merits also, the petitioners   have no case. It is the case on
\n\tbehalf of the respective petitioners   that they are residing by
\n\tputting their huts and\/or constructing small rooms since last more
\n\tthan 45 years i.e.  prior to 1991 census and therefore, they cannot
\n\tbe evicted unless they are provided with alternative accommodation,
\n\tthat too on the very land in question. It is the case on behalf of
\n\tthe respective petitioners that as such  there are approximately 267
\n\tfamilies likely to be affected who are residing since last more than
\n\t45  years. The aforesaid is disputed by the respondents by filing a
\n\tdetailed Affidavit-in-reply with supporting documents enclosing copy
\n\tof the Panchnama prepared on 6\/11\/2009. It is the specific case on
\n\tbehalf of the respondents that some of the original encroachers are
\n\tnot residing on the land in question and they have rented the rooms
\n\tand are recovering rent,  who have also preferred petitions. One
\n\texample is given of petitioner
\n\t No.2   Amratbhai Rabari. He is found to be residing
\n\tin Karmachari Cooperative Housing Society, who has constructed 29
\n\trooms and who has rented to other persons  and is recovering the
\n\trent. Therefore, it is specific case on behalf of the respondents
\n\tthat those persons who have filed the petitions,  some of them are
\n\tnot residing on the land in question and those who are residing,
\n\thave not preferred petitions.  The aforesaid is tried to be denied
\n\tby the petitioners. However, the aforesaid would be disputed
\n\tquestion which is not  required to be considered by this Court under
\n\tArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.  Construction of 29 rooms
\n\tby the petitioner
\n\t No.2 and other persons occupying the said 29 rooms
\n\tconstructed by the petitioner
\n\t No.2 is not denied by the petitioners. As such, there
\n\tis no reference to the same in the petition.  To that extent, there
\n\tis a suppression of material facts which disentitles  the
\n\tpetitioners
\n\t  of discretionary relief under Article 226 of the
\n\tConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
Now
\n\tso far as the contention on behalf of the respective petitioners
\n\tthat they cannot be evicted from the land in question without
\n\tproviding them alternative accommodation is concerned, it is to be
\n\tnoted that it is admitted position that the respective petitioners
\n\thave encroached upon the Government land and they are rank
\n\ttrespassers. The respective petitioners being encroachers and\/or
\n\trank trespassers, as such cannot as a matter of right claim that
\n\tthey cannot be evicted without providing  them alternative. Somewhat
\n\tsimilar question came to be considered by the Division Bench  in
\n\tSpecial
\n\tCivil Application No. 8121 of 2003 and on behalf of
\n\tthe encroachers  who encroached upon the public road, it was
\n\tcontended that they cannot be evicted  and\/or remove from site
\n\tunless they are provided alternative site, however, while dismissing
\n\tthe said Special
\n\tCivil Application, the Division Bench in para 3
\n\tobserved as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t 3.\tThere
\n is  no dispute that the land in occupation
\n       of the occupants of hutments is a public  land  owned  by
\n      the Vadodara  Municipal  Corporation.   That being so, we
\n      fail to  understand,  how  the  petitioner  can  continue
\n      thereon   and  seek  allotment  of  alternative  site(s).
\n      Encroachment  of  public  property  is  rampant  and   is
\n      increasing alarmingly.   In case, the claim for remaining
\n      on  the  same  site(s)  or  providing   the   encroachers
\n      alternative  site(s)  is  allowed,  the  result  would be
\n      disastrous;  the  encroachers  would  encroach  upon  the
\n      public  property;  resist  attempts by the authorities to
\n      remove them to clear the area or  press  for  alternative
\n      site(s) under  the banner of right to shelter.  We should
\n      not allow such a thing to happen since such a thing would
\n      not be in the interest of the nation.  We, therefore,  do
\n      not find merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
\n      Notice is discharged.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tcase of Association of Cabin Holders of Karchalia Vs. State of
\n\tGujarat & Ors. (Supra), the Division bench in paragraph Nos.8, 9
\n\tand 13 has observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 8.\t\tUndisputedly,
\nthe petitioners have not been allotted any land, nor have any
\nauthority of law to stay in the kutcha\/pacca construction raised by
\nthem. They are rank trespassers who have made encroachment by raising
\nconstruction on the side flanks of the road within the ribbon
\ndevelopment area. It cannot be disputed that the road does not mean
\npacca
\nconstruction either with cement or concrete or by  metal or by
\nbituminous, but, the side flanks, which are on the sides of the
\nroads, which may even be kutcha
\nwould also be parts of the roads. The roads are not made for stay,
\nrather permanent stay, the roads are constructed to provide civic
\namenities for the convenience of the general public. Of late, it is
\nto be seen that one man would take a risk by placing some
\nmaterial or
\nsome concrete
\nand
\nthereafter, he would be followed by others. Serious illegal
\nactivities in making encroachment would go on and ultimately, the
\nAssociation like the present, which we can describe as the rampant
\nwrongdoer, under its authority, would appear before another Officer
\nof the Government
\nand would try to intimidate upon
\nhim and would also seek political protection. In the present case,
\nthe Members of Parliament and the Members of Legislative Assembly
\nwere readily available to the wrongdoers when they went to the higher
\nOfficers and pleaded the cases of the petitioner’s members that no
\naction should be taken against them and if they are to be removed,
\nsome alternative accommodation must be provided to them. It is most
\nunfortunate that to protect the vote bank, the politicians are
\ncommitting injustice with the people who are law abiding citizens.
\nDemocracy does not mean that one is entitled to exercise some rights
\nwhich the law does not confer upon him, democracy also does not mean
\nthat a group of wrongdoers would stand up and with their brutal
\nand
\nthumping majority, would compel the Officers to surrender or submit
\nbefore them and accept their illegal demands. Democracy is a system
\nof the Government which is of the public, by the public and for the
\npublic. All the wrongdoers, who are less in number, if are allowed to
\nrule the law or govern the Government, then, that would not be the
\nliberty, but, it would prove to be the death-knell in the democracy’s
\ncoffin.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe present matter, without any authority of law, constructions were
\n\traised by the members of the petitioner-Association, they had no
\n\tauthority, they had no allotment, they had no settlement, nor they
\n\thad any oral permission, nor any political patronage at the time
\n\twhen they entered on this land. Assuming for a minute that they had
\n\tsome political patronage at the time of their illegal entry upon the
\n\tland, then also, the said political patronage would not protect the
\n\tillegal act committed by the members of the petitioner-Association.
\n\tThe politics is not on the roads as the encroachment, but, the
\n\tpoliticians find its room in the Parliament and the Legislative
\n\tAssembly.  Such illegal assurance by the politicians that everything
\n\twould be settled in favour of the slum dwellers, wrongdoers,
\n\ttrespassers or encroachers may or may not be a misconduct on their
\n\tpart under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act,
\n\tbut, any such assurance would be illegal if it does not have any
\n\tlegal foundation to stand.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tThe petitioners
\ndo not have any right under any law except making a submission that
\nthey are entitled for their rehabilitation  or resettlement at some
\nplace. If resettlement or rehabilitation proceedings are taken in
\nfavour of these persons, then, it would be adding premium  upon the
\nwrong committed by such persons. Would not the law abiding citizen
\nfeel bad that though, all through, he had been observing law, he
\ncould not seek any benefits under the strong clutches of law, while
\non the other hand, a wrongdoer, whose action was in the teeth of law,
\nis getting some benefits and his illegal action is ripening in some
\nrights in favour of the wrongdoer. In our opinion, an order for
\nsettlement or rehabilitation of such persons can never be made.\n<\/p>\n
Identical
\n\tquestion came to be considered by the learned Single Judge in an
\n\tunreported  decision in Special
\n\tCivil Application No. 6937 of 1999 and other Special
\n\tCivil Applications, in which notices issued by the
\n\tGram Panchayat for removal of the encroachment made by the
\n\tpetitioners by constructing huts were under challenge and even
\n\trelying upon the decision of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Khan Gulab
\n\tKhan & Ors. (supra), the learned Single Judge observed in
\n\tparagraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 has observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tHaving
\n\tconsidered the above, it appears that there is no dispute on the
\n\tpoint that the petitioners are not having title over the land. It
\n\tfurther appears from the report of the Gram Panchayat as well as of
\n\tthe AUDA that initially, the land was nearby the lake
\n\tand now as the land is reserved for garden and the
\n\tpetitioners are encroachers over the land in question.  It may be
\n\tthat at the relevant point of time, due to their financial condition
\n\tor otherwise, they constructed their shelter and occupied for a
\n\tperiod of about 20 years as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the
\n\tpetitioners, but when the
\n\tauthorities are taking steps for removal of such encroachment, the
\n\tpetitioners cannot assert as of right, that alternative land must be
\n\tprovided to them and till the alternative land is provided, they
\n\tshall not vacate.  Similarly, when it is an encroachment over the
\n\tpublic property, if the Court
\n\tgives indulgence and directs the authority to provide
\n\talternative land, such would not be in the larger public interest
\n\tand the reason being that the people will be tempted to make
\n\tencroachment over the public property.  This Court while exercising
\n\tpowers under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not create a
\n\tsituation, which results into permitting the encroachment over the
\n\tpublic property.  On the contrary, the Court would make an attempt
\n\tto see that the public property are protected and are made available
\n\tto the public at large for their benefit and are not appropriated or
\n\tutilised by the encroachers who are having no authority to occupy
\n\tsuch public property.\n<\/p>\n
8.
\n\t     The reliance placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in
\n\tcase of Olga Tellis & Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and
\n\tOrs. reported at AIR 1986 SC 180 and the equivalent reported at at
\n\t1985(3) SCC 545, is ill-founded, inasmuch as subsequently,  the said
\n\tdecision is considered by the Apex Court in case of Ahmedabad
\n\tMunicipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan & Ors. reported
\n\tat 1997(3) GLR 1998, and the Apex Court observed inter alia at para
\n\t28 as under:\n<\/p>\n
 Encroachment
\nof public property undoubtedly obstructs and upsets planned
\ndevelopment, ecology and sanitation.  Public  property needs to be
\npreserved and protected.  It is but the duty of the State Government
\nand the local bodies to ensure the same.  This would answer the
\nsecond question.  As regards the fourth question, it is to reiterate
\nthat judicial review is the basic structure of the Constitution.
\nEvery citizen has a fundamental right to redress the perceived legal
\ninjury through judicial process.  The encroachers are no exceptions
\nto that Constitutional right to judicial redressal. The
\nConstitutional Court, therefore, has a Constitutional duty as
\nsentinel qui vive to enforce the right of a citizen when he
\napproaches the Court for perceived legal injury, provided he
\nestablishes that he has a right to remedy.  When an encroacher
\napproaches the Court, the Court is required to examine whether the
\nencroacher has any right and to what extent he would be given
\nprotection and relief. In that behalf, it is the statutory duty of
\nthe State or the local bodies or any instrumentality to assist the
\nCourt by placing necessary factual position and legal setting for
\nadjudication and for granting\/refusing relief appropriate to the
\nsituation. Therefore, the mere fact that the encroachers have
\napproached the Court would be no ground to dismiss their cases.  The
\ncontention of the appellant-Corporation  that the intervention of the
\nCourt would aid impetus to the encroachers to abuse the judicial
\nprocess is tenable.  As held earlier, if the appellant-Corporation or
\nany local body or the State Government or the State acts with
\nvigilance and prevents encroachment immediately, the need to follow
\nthe procedure enshrined as an inbuilt fair procedure would be
\nobviated.  But, if they allow the encroachers to remain in settled
\npossession suficiently for long time, which would be a fact to be
\nestablished in an appropriate case, necessarily suitable procedure
\nwould be required to be adopted to meet the fact situation and that,
\ntherefore, it would be for the respondent concerned and also for the
\npetitioner to establish the respective claims and it is for the Court
\nto consider as to what would be the appropriate procedure required to
\nbe adopted in the given facts and circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\twas further observed by the Apex Court at para 29 as under:\n<\/p>\n
 It
\n\t\t\tis true that in all cases it may not be necessary, as a condition
\n\t\t\tfor ejectment of the encoracher, that he should be provided with
\n\t\t\tan alternative accommocation at the expense of the State which if
\n\t\t\tgiven due credence, is likely to result in abuse of the judicial
\n\t\t\tprocess.  But no absolute principle of universal application would
\n\t\t\tbe laid in this behalf.  Each case is required to be examined on
\n\t\t\tthe given set of facts and appropriate direction or remedy be
\n\t\t\tevolved by the Court suitable to the facts of the case.  Normally,
\n\t\t\tthe Court may not, as a rule , direct that the encroacher should
\n\t\t\tbe provided with an alternative accommodation before ejectment
\n\t\t\twhen they encroached public properties, but as stated earlier,
\n\t\t\teach case requires examination and suitable direction appropriate
\n\t\t\tto the facts require modulation.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tthe decision upon which the reliance is placed by Mr. Oza, learned
\n\tcounsel for the petitioners is of no help to the petitioners.
\n\tHowever, if the matter is considered in light of the aforesaid
\n\tobservations made by the Apex Court, then also, when under Town
\n\tPlanning Scheme, as the land is reserved for a public garden, it
\n\tshould be made available to the public at large.  Such will be the
\n\tsituation even if the lake is there.  The reason being that as
\n\tobserved by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shailesh
\n\tR. Shah Vs. State of Gujarat reported 2002(3) GLR 2295, the water
\n\tbodies are required to be preserved and no construction nearby a
\n\tparticular area of the water bodies are to be permitted.  Therefore,
\n\ton both counts, if the action is taken for removal of the
\n\tencroachment, such an action cannot be said as unreasonable or
\n\tarbitrary on the part of the authority.\n<\/p>\n
9.
\n\t      So far as providing for alternative land is concerned, as
\n\tsought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioners, such direction
\n\tin my view is not required to be issued, which may result into
\n\tencouraging the encroachment over the public property.  It deserves
\n\tto be recorded that the aforesaid observations made by the Apex
\n\tCourt in case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation(supra), were
\n\tpertaining to the pavement, streets and footpaths  and removal of
\n\tthe encroachment over such public roads.  Even if such principles
\n\tare made applicable, I find that in normal circumstances, as
\n\tobserved by the Apex Court, no direction should be given for
\n\tproviding of the alternative accommodation or alternative land to
\n\tthe persons who have made encroachment over the public property.  It
\n\tmay be that on account of the general policy matters, the Government
\n\tor the concerned authority may decide to undertake measures for
\n\trehabilitation of such hutments as may be permission in law.\n<\/p>\n
10.
\n\t      The approach of the authority for removal of the encroachment
\n\tover the public road may not be the same as it is required for the
\n\tproperty other than the public road or street or pavement or both.
\n\tIn my view, if the matter pertains to the residential accommodation
\n\tor shelter of hutments, some humanitarian approach may be required
\n\tfor providing some reasonable time to the persons concerned to shift
\n\ttheir belongings and to vacate the land.  Of course, such time may
\n\tbe provided, if the person concerned of his own undertakes to remove
\n\tthe encroachment and vacates the land by shifting his belongings to
\n\tany other place. Otherwise in normal circumstances, for residential
\n\taccommodation, six weeks time may be sufficient to the persons
\n\tconcerned to remove the encroachment and shift his belongings.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above decisions of the Division Bench  as well as the
\n\tlearned Single Judge  of this Court no writ can be issued against
\n\tthe respondents directing them to provide alternative  site \/
\n\taccommodation to the petitioners   and until then they shall not be
\n\tevicted.\n<\/p>\n
Now,
\n\tso far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Division
\n\tBench in the case of Intajamuddin Yasinbhai Ansari & Ors.
\n\t(supra)  is concerned, as such there is no absolute proposition of
\n\tlaw laid down by the Division Bench in the said decision. In the
\n\tfacts of that case, the Division Bench might have been persuaded to
\n\tissue directions upon the respondents not to evict the encroachers \/
\n\tpetitioners until they are provided with alternative accommodation \/
\n\tsite. It appears that the aforesaid decisions were not brought to
\n\tthe notice of the Division Bench. Even considering the said
\n\tdecision, there is no absolute proposition of law laid down by the
\n\tDivision Bench   that in all the cases no encroachments  can be
\n\tremoved  without providing alternative accommodation \/ site. Now, so
\n\tfar as reliance placed upon the case of Nawab Khan Gulab Khan &
\n\tOrs.  (supra), as such the same has been dealt with and considered
\n\tby the learned Single Judge while deciding Special
\n\tCivil Application No. 6937 of 1999 and even
\n\tconsidering the said  decision of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  that in all cases, it may not
\n\tbe necessary as a condition that ejectment of the encroacher he
\n\tshould be provided alternative  accommodation at the instance of the
\n\tState which if given due  credence  is likely to  abuse judicial
\n\tprocess and each case is required to be examined on the given set
\n\tof facts and appropriate direction or remedy evolved by the Court
\n\tsuitable to the facts of the case. It is also  observed by the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court   in the said decision that
\n\tnormally the Court may not, as a rule, direct that the encroacher
\n\tshould be provided with alternative accommodation before ejectment
\n\twhen they encroached the public property.\n<\/p>\n
Now,
\n\tconsidering the facts of the case on hand and the case on behalf of
\n\tthe respondents, and considering the fact that some of the
\n\tpetitioners,  more particularly petitioner
\n\t No.2  has  constructed as many as 29 rooms and let
\n\tout to other persons and is recovering rent and is residing in a
\n\tsociety at other place and considering the case on behalf of the
\n\trespondents that some of the petitioners  are not residing on the
\n\tland in question and also considering the fact that shops are also
\n\tconstructed, this court would not like  to exercise powers under
\n\tArticle 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of such persons.\n<\/p>\n
Now,
\n\tthe reliance placed upon clause 16.2 of the GDCR is concerned,
\n\tconsidering clause 16.2 it appears  that the submissions made on
\n\tbehalf of the petitioners   relying upon clause 16.2 to pray
\n\talternative accommodation on the very land is absolutely misplaced
\n\tand on misinterpretation of clause 16.2. As such, clause 16.2 is not
\n\ta Scheme framed by the Corporation under the authority to provide
\n\talternative accommodation to the encroachers on the very land which
\n\tis encroached  upon by  them. It provides that if a land is
\n\tencroached upon and owner of the land  proposes a put up a scheme to
\n\taccommodate such encroachers  on the very land in question, in that
\n\tcase, they can do it in 50% of the land and the rest of the  50%
\n\tland can be used by such owner and such owner can get an additional
\n\tFSI. Therefore,  the submissions on behalf of the petitioners to
\n\toffer alternative accommodation on the very land in question relying
\n\tupon clause 16.2 of the GDCR and contending that they are in
\n\toccupation  since 1991 census cannot be accepted and granted, as
\n\tthere is no substance in it. As stated above, the respective
\n\tpetitioners are encroachers and rank trespassers and considering the
\n\tobservations made by the Division Bench  of this Court and the
\n\tlearned Single Judge referred to hereinabove and even considering
\n\tthe decision of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of Nawab Khan Gulab
\n\tKhan (supra), referred to hereinabove, the petitioners   as a matter
\n\tof right cannot pray that they cannot be evicted without offering
\n\tthem alternative accommodation. In fact such a relief cannot be
\n\tgranted. If such a relief is considered and\/or granted, it would
\n\tamount to give premium to the wrongdoer who have encroached upon the
\n\tGovernment land and there will not be any rule of law. As  observed
\n\tby the Division Bench, as first they make the encroachment upon the
\n\tGovernment land and thereafter when proceedings are initiated to
\n\tevict them, they will pray for alternative accommodation which
\n\tcannot be granted. Even considering the same as a social problem, to
\n\tmaintain rule of law, such a premium to the wrongdoers, who have
\n\tencroached upon the Government  land is not required to be  given,
\n\tmore particularly, in the facts and circumstances of the case
\n\tnarrated hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe reasons stated above, all these petitions deserve to be
\n\tdismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
\n\tAd-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthis stage Mr.S.I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate appearing on
\n\tbehalf of the respective petitioners  has prayed to stay the
\n\texecution of the present judgement and order and to continue
\n\tad-interim relief granted earlier, so as to enable the petitioners
\n\tto  approach the higher forum.\n<\/p>\n
So
\n\tas to enable the petitioners   to approach the higher forum
\n\tchallenging the present judgement and order, the respective parties
\n\tare directed to maintain status-quo,  as on today until 30\/4\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
rafik<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/11947\/2009 38\/ 38 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11947 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2158 of 2010 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2265 of 2010 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAjmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-30T04:25:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-30T04:25:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":7251,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-30T04:25:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-30T04:25:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-30T04:25:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010"},"wordCount":7251,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010","name":"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-30T04:25:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmalbhai-vs-state-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajmalbhai vs State on 26 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}