NATUBHAI AMTHABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the notices issued by the Corporation on 3/3/2017 and 7/3/2017 by which the petitioners who are shop owners on the lands in question have been removed and their structures demolished on the ground that there are encroachments on the land in question on public road.

(2.) Mr. Anshul Shah, learned advocate appearing for Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners would take the court through the notices dated 3/3/2017 and 7/3/2017 and submit that not even a modicum of notice was given prior to the demolition of structures in question. He would also invite the attention of the court to the order passed in the rent suit filed between the petitioners and the trust namely the Golai Mata Mandir on whose land the shops are situated. The submission of Mr. Anshul Shah, learned advocate is that in view of the observations made in the order of the interim injunction where the District Collector is the trustee of the temple it was incumbent upon the authorities to give notice and/or take into consideration the representation made by the petitioners before acting high handedly in demolishing the premises.

(3.) Ms. Priyanshi Chandarana, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Parth Bhatt, learned advocate for the Corporation would submit that reading the notices would indicate that the provisions of Sec. 231 of the Act were invoked. The photographs have been shown to the court which according to the respondents would indicate encroachments on public road. As far as the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to put up shops on the land which yet remains within the control of the trust, it is her submission that in the event permission is sought for, the Corporation would consider such request on behalf of the landlord since the petitioners are only trustees of the land of the trust in question.