IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18511 of 2017 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8506 of 2016 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6862 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ୰ ========================================================== ISHWARBHAI HAMIRBHAI VANSAFODIYA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANOJ SHRIMALI(2331) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR PG DESAI SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 12/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kanara, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf respondent No.2 p. 2 2. Since the issues involved in the present petitions are identical and arise out of similar facts, all the petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment treating the Special Civil Application No.18511 of 2017 as lead matter. 3. In the lead matter i.e. Special Civil Application No.18511 of 2017 the petitioners have prayed for following relief/s:- "8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, for consideration of the case of the petitioners by providing them alternative accommodation and/or by allotting flats in question constructed at Mangal Talavadi area or at any other place. [B] Till decision for consideration of alternative accommodation to be provided to the petitioners is taken, Your Lordships may be pleased to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners. [C] Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased direct the respondents to extend benefits of the R & R Scheme to the petitioners. [D] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide temporary alternative accommodation to the petitioners. [E] Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require in the interest of justice." 4. Since the identical issues and facts involved in all the p. 3 petitions the facts mentioned in the lead petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.18511 of 2017 are taken into account. 5. As per the petitioners they had been residing in the Mangal Talavadi hutment area for more than 35 years prior to their removal by the respondent authorities and are therefore affected persons in the present petition. The said land falls under T.P. Scheme No. 26 (Vasna), Final Plot No. 274 + 275/2. At the time of the survey conducted by the respondent authorities, the petitioners had submitted relevant documentary evidence such as Aadhar Cards, tax bills, tax payment receipts, death certificates and other supporting documents. 5.1 The petitioners belong to the lower strata of the society and most of them belong to the SEBC community. They are poor and uneducated persons who earn their livelihood by doing miscellaneous labour work and maintain their families with great difficulty. 5.2 As per petitioners, the respondent no.1 introduced a Scheme for Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums, 2010 and pursuant thereto respondent no.2 awarded a contract to M/s B. Safal & Company for construction of flats at Mangal Talavadi area for rehabilitation of hutment dwellers. A survey of the residents was conducted by the respondent authorities and the petitioners had submitted the necessary documents at the time of the survey. Thereafter, a list of eligible persons p. 4 was prepared by respondent no.2 in which the names of the petitioners were also included. 5.3 Despite the above, flats constructed under the said scheme have been allotted to several persons who were not residents of the area and were not part of the survey, and in many cases multiple flats have been allotted to relatives of the office bearers of the Association in collusion with certain officials of respondent no.2 and the contractor. As a result, the petitioners, though eligible and whose names appear in the list, have not been allotted flats. 5.4 The petitioners had raised their grievances before the respondent authorities and had also submitted representations requesting allotment of flats under the said rehabilitation scheme. However, no action has been taken by the respondents till date. 5.5 Being aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondent authorities in not allotting flats to the petitioners though they are eligible beneficiaries under the scheme, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 6. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. 7. Today, Mr. P.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for p. 5 respondent No.2–Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, upon instructions received from the concerned authority of the Corporation, submitted that if a fresh representation is made by the petitioners raising their grievances, the same shall be considered and decided by the Corporation in accordance with law. 8. In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of respondent No.2, the present petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall submit a fresh representation to the respondent Corporation within a period of three weeks, along with all relevant documents and materials in support of their claim. 9. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondent Corporation shall decide the same within a period of six weeks after providing a full and fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after taking into consideration the relevant record as well as the applicable policy and scheme. Direct service is permitted. Sd/- (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI