HANIFMOHAMMAD ABDULBHAI MALEK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is doing the business of making shops situated in land bearing City Survey No.5080-5085 situated at Valsad City, near S.T. Depo. The land is a private land and the petitioner and other persons were having small shops on rent since 1972 and the petitioner doing the business in the name of 'Bharat Dairy' by taking all necessary permission from Valsad Seva Sadan and various authorities. It has been asserted in the petition that the shop of the petitioner is on the private land, on rental basis, not a public land and no hurdle is being created on the public road as well. The land on which the shop is situated was belonging to one Karimbibi Shaikh, over which the petitioner and other persons allegedly, constructed the illegal shops and as such, she made a grievance on 7.10.2020 requesting the authority, i.e. respondent No.3, to demolish the shop. According to the petitioner, with connivance and political motive and intention was to demolish the shops without notice, though there is no power of demolition of shops and as such, a request was made on 25/11/2020, but then, the authority was bent upon, hence the petition was filed being Special Civil Application No.16501 of 2020. Vide order dtd. 24/12/2020, the petitioner was permitted to file representation before the authority and same was directed to be decided within the stipulated period as contained in the said order. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application/ representation before the collector on 28.12.2020, the case was numbered by the Collector, being ACB/MSC/Vashi/ 1331/2020 and unfortunately, according to the petitioner, vide order dtd. 26.2.2021, the Collector justified the action of demolition of the shops of the petitioner, which has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present petition for seeking the reliefs, as indicated above.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is carrying on the business since 1971-72 onwards and the shop was on the private land, for which necessary license and permission have been obtained from various authorities, but at the instance of some pressure, pursuant to the application dtd. 7.10.2020, action of demolition unilaterally is taken which has practically put the petitioner on road, which was the livelihood of the petitioner, which ought not to have been snatched away by the authority in the manner in which it has been processed. Mr. Modi has submitted that if details are to be considered, for this period, necessary permissions and licenses were obtained which can be seen from the Annexures attached to the petition compilation and as what has been prayed for deserves to be granted as the action is not at all justified in the eye of law. Mr. Modi has submitted that either the petitioner may be allowed to rebuilt at the place from where he has been removed or to provide adequate compensation for illegal demolition of the shops and hence requested the Court to issue necessary writ.