C/SCA/14779/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14779 of 2025 ========================================================== DINESHBHAI PARSOTAMBHAI @ PASHABHAI Versus HIMMATNAGAR NAGARPALIKA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR RUSHABH R SHAH(5314) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MS MANVI DMALE for NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 16/10/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside the notices cum orders dated 29.05.2025 3.10.2025 and 07.10.2025, (Annexure A- page 15, 16 and 17 respectively) issued by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 1 respectively. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rushabh Shah for the petitioner. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner herein is a tenant of shop constructed on city survey No.3499 and 3500, having property No.HNP10071605 and HNP10071610 respectively. On account of some construction to be done of over bridge and under bridge, the Gujarat Urban Development C/SCA/14779/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 Company, Gandhinagar has addressed a communications to Chief Officer, Himmatnagar Nagarpalika dated 02.09.2025, 03.10.2025 and 07.10.2025 referring to demolition to be done for the purpose of development of over bridge and under bridge. 3. However, the demolition which is to be done is causing prejudice to the petitioner since he being the tenant of the property, is doing his business there. Moreover, the owner of the property had made representation dated 10.06.2025, to the Chief Officer, Himmatnagar Nagarpalika stating that if a portion of building is removed it may cause casualty, instead of that it is advisable to remove entire structure. Therefore, If a part structure is removed the petitioner will not get affected however, the respondents may be restrained to demolish the entire structure. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela for respondent No.1 - Himmatnagar Nagarpalika resisted the request made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that none of the notices/orders are issued to the petitioner. 5. Having considered the submissions and documents on record, it appears that the petitioner for his tenancy rights has C/SCA/14779/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025 filed this petition. None of the orders are addressed to the petitioners. Further for the private dispute between the tenant and owner, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not lie. Moreover, the reliance placed on a communication addressed by private respondent to the petitioner, also would not help because it relates to private dispute between the parties. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of as rejected. (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) NAIR SMITA V./03 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: SMITA VINU NAIR(HC00186), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/10/2025 15:36:13