C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15965 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15979 of 2025 ========================================================== ASHOKBHAI KANJIBHAI CHAVDA & ORS. Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR. MAHITOSH U SINGH (7015) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,3 2,33,34,35,36,37,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR. MH SHEKHAWAT (7194) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,3 2,33,34,35,36,37,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR. RAJESH D. RATHOD(18729) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,3 2,33,34,35,36,37,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR G H VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, with MR SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK, ADVOCATE with MR JAGRAT SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 28/11/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Since, both these petitions are interconnected, they are heard together and decided and disposed of by this common order. 2. These petitions are filed challenging the notices dated 06.11.2025 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby petitioners have been directed to give peaceful vacant possession of their C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 premises within 21 days. A reference of construction done on a water body is made in the said notices. The notices dated 06.11.2025 were served to all the petitioners individually. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mahitosh Singh for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. S. H. Virk for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the notices dated 06.11.2025 may be quashed and set aside because the petitioners herein are residents of Revenue Survey Nos. 257 and are having their residences since many years. In support learned advocate has relied upon electricity bills (Annexure-B, Page No. 52) as also the property tax bills and APL Card (Annexure-B, Page No. 53) to justify their long occupancy. 4.1 It was further submitted that the petitioners are residing on Revenue Survey No. 257 because on electricity bills and municipal tax bills address of Revenue Survey No. 257 is written. Because of reference of Revenue Survey No. 257, on the bills, it is believed by the petitioners that they are residing in Revenue Survey No. 257. However, notices were served to all the petitioners referring to Revenue Survey No. 258. Thus, without ascertainment of area in question, these notices have been issued and hence, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that in the notices reference is made for development of C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 ‘Kamal Talav’ and for the said purpose the possession of the land is to be given to the Municipal Corporation. However, the petitioners are not residing on a water body and their residences are surrounding the water body and therefore the notices deserve to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, the allegations of plastic waste and pollution created in a pond area is erroneous. Learned advocate submitted that since all the petitioners are residing there since many years which is evident from their tax bills, they may not be dispossessed. Learned advocate along with the petition has produced tax bills and electricity bills justifying their long occupancy. 5. Opposing the petition, learned advocate Mr. S. H. Virk for respondent – Corporation invited attention of this Court to the notices dated 06.11.2025 to submit that the said notices have been individually issued to all the petitioners. These notices refer to Election Ward No. 11 of Sardarnagar, Naroda having Revenue Survey No. 258. The notices also refer that in Revenue Survey No. 258 in Final Plot No. 17/2 there is ‘Kamal Pond’ and the State Government has directed the respondents to carry out development and beautification of the said pond. The notices also refer that the residents of that area by creating encroachment have polluted the water body and therefore also the encroachment deserve to be removed. 5.1 Learned advocate for respondent – Corporation submitted that electricity bills and tax bills cannot be stated to be authenticated documents establishing their case for ownership and admittedly these petitioners are encroachers on water body and therefore the said notices have been issued granting them C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 21 days’ time to remove encroachment. 5.2 Further, since the petitioners have failed in establishing their case with regard to their ownership on the subject land, they are encroachers on the land. Moreover, the 7/12 extract annexed along with affidavit-in-reply (Page No. 227) refers to the land in the name of Government. Therefore, also no encroachment is permissible on the Government land and the encroachment created on a Government land more particularly on a water body deserve to be removed. Learned advocate placed reliance on Page Nos. 226 and 227 of the affidavit-in- reply to submit that both the documents justify the ownership of land in name of Government. By referring to the map (Page No. 224) learned advocate submitted that the map shows encroachment on Revenue Survey No. 258 which is ‘Umla Talavdi’ (Kamal Talav). All the petitioners are situated on the pond land which is evident from the map. Moreover, Annexure-3 is the details of the petitioners and having their structure number situated as shown in the map. Therefore, admittedly the construction of the residences of the petitioners are on pond land and as per the settled legal position no encroachment or construction is permissible on a water body. Therefore, these notices have been issued to the petitioners by giving sufficient time of 21 days to vacate and to give peaceful vacant possession of the premises. 5.3 Learned advocate for respondent – Corporation further submitted that in absence of any ownership documents with the petitioners and the petitioners simply being encroachers on the land the grievance raised being beyond the settled legal C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 position, deserves rejection of this petition. Moreover, the petitioners by annexing voluminous documents of electricity bills and other related bills are trying to get misplaced sympathy on the ground of their long occupancy. The petitioners were aware of their status that they are encroachers and had created construction on water body since many years. Therefore, the present petition may not be entertained and be rejected. Further, in both the petitions altogether there are as many as 77 petitioners and from the list annexed it is evident that all the residents of one unit have been joined as party to the proceedings and therefore, the petitioners are trying to get misplaced sympathy that as many as 77 petitioners are residing and they will be dispossessed, if demolition takes place. 5.4 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for respondent – Corporation relied upon the following decisions: -  In the case of Mirza Abid Beg v.s. State of U. P. and Ors1 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.07.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 1904 of 2020 it is held that, it is paramount duty of the State not only to protect ponds, lakes, water bodies in the State but also ensure that the same have been illegally filed in are restored. It is constitutional duty of the State to do so and in this case accordingly the State Government has directed the Municipal Corporation to develop and beautify the pond land for that notices have been issued. 1In Civil Appeal No. 1904 of 2020 decided on 16.07.2024 C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025  In the case of Kaniz Ahmed v.s. Sabuddin and Ors 2; it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unauthorized construction needs to be dealt with strictly. The mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorized construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. The Courts must adopt the strict approach while dealing with the cases of illegal construction and should not readily enlarge themselves in a judicial regulation of building erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. In this case, the construction of the petitioners is unauthorized and also on a water body and therefore, the prayer prayed directing to quash and set aside the notices would amount to misplaced sympathy and may not be entertained.  In the case of Fuljaha Noormohammed Shaikh and Ors v.s. State of Gujarat and Ors.3 it is held that when the procedure has been followed by the Municipal Corporation prior to taking action as per the provisions of the Act no interference is required on the ground of their long possession over the subject property. 6. Considered the submissions and the documents on record. At the outset, it is noticed that both the petitions are filed challenging the notices dated 06.11.2025 wherein petitioners have been directed to give peaceful vacant possession of the land in question within a period of 21 days. The notices record 2 2025 SCC Online SC 995 3 2025 SCC Online Guj 1534 C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 construction done on a water body and done without prior permission of the competent authority. In the notice, the pollution created by the residents of that area is also referred. It is true that the said notices refer to Revenue Survey No. 258 in Town Planning Scheme No. 97 (Naroda-North) having Final Plot No. 14/2 wherein ‘Kamal Talav’ is situated. From the photographs annexed with the affidavit-in-reply, this Court has noticed that the polluted pond is visibly seen. 7. Now, taking into consideration the submissions canvased on behalf of the petitioners that they are in occupation of their premises since many years cannot be disputed. However, this Court is of the opinion that long possession over the property will not create any ownership right and in this case, the electricity bills, property tax and other related bills and documents establishes the long possession however, not a single document is produced justifying the ownership over the property or the construction done with prior permission of the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, admittedly, in the opinion of this Court, the construction is unauthorized done without there being any development permission in favour of the petitioners as also on the land which in not in ownership of the petitioners. On the contrary, the documents annexed along with the petition (Page Nos. 226 and 227) refers to the 7/12 extract and Form ‘F’ prepared by the Town Planning Authority, shows ownership of land in the name of State Government. Hence, the submissions canvased that no construction is permissible on the government land merit acceptance. Therefore, it is admitted fact that in these petitions all the petitioners have created construction unauthorizedly on C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 a Government land which is a water body. There is no denial to the fact that Revenue Survey No. 258 refers to a water body where Kamal Talav is situated. The map justifies the existence of Kamal Talav on Revenue Survey No. 258. From the notice it is evident that the construction done on Revenue Survey No. 258 being water body deserves to be vacated or otherwise appropriate action permissible under the provisions of the Act is to be taken by Municipal Corporation. 8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the following decisions:- 8.1 In the case of Mirza Abid Meg1, the Hon’be Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 3 held as under:- “3. We must record here with a great deal of emphasis that it is the paramount duty of the State not only to protect the ponds/lakes/water bodies in the State but also to ensure that ponds/lakes/water bodies, which have been illegally filled in, are restored. It is the Constitutional duty of the State to do so. The Committee appointed by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, will make a note of this obligation on the part of the State.” 8.2 In the case of Kaniz Ahmed2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 5 held as under:- “5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorized construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. In our decision referred to above, we have issued the following directions: “(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned. (ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records. (iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified. (iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate. (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith. (vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building. (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment. (viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the planning C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 department/local body for co-operation from another department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge. (ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being filed by the owner or builder against the non issuance of completion certificate or for regularization of unauthorized construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided. (x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being initiated against the erring officials as per law. (xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on production of the same by the parties concerned. Page 11 of 13 C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 (xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws.”” 8.3 In the case of Fuljaha Noormohammed Shaikh and Ors.3, this Court in Paragraph No. 12 held as under:- “12. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court since the construction of the petitioners are on the water body which is evident from the affidavit filed as also the area is also known as Chandola Lake area, the argument that procedure is not followed and the principles of natural justice being not adhered to, in the opinion of this Court would not be acceptable and therefore the submissions canvased on behalf of petitioners does not merit acceptance and hence the prayer prayed with regard to restraining the respondents from carrying out demolition activity of the subject area is hereby rejected.” 9. Hence, in the opinion of this Court when the law is settled that no construction is permissible unauthorizedly either on the Government land or water body, this Court could not see any illegality or error in the notices issued by respondent – Corporation. 10. Now, taking into consideration the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioners that the notices have been issued in Revenue Survey No. 258 whereas the petitioners are residing in Revenue Survey No. 257, the submission on behalf C/SCA/15965/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 of Corporation cannot be ignored that in the map the structure No. 31 is shown. This structure No. 31, is of petitioner No. 1 – Ashokbhai Kanjibhai Chavda and it is forming part of Revenue Survey No. 258 and they are admittedly on the water body. Even otherwise, if the petitioners are not forming part of Revenue Survey No. 258, then no cause has arisen for them to challenge the said notices. 11. In view of above, present petition is devoid of merits, and the same is dismissed. However, noticing their long possession and the nature of structure being residential premises, it is open for petitioners to make appropriate application before the Municipal Corporation for their rehabilitation in the scheme, if any, available. If such applications are made by the petitioners, then the same shall be decided by the Corporation in accordance with law. 12. With the above observations and directions, present petition is disposed of. (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI... Page 13 of 13 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PILLAI SHRIJIT P(HC01400), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/12/2025 11:21:43