LAWS(GJH)-2019-7-159

BHALIYA BHIKHABHAI RAMJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On July 25, 2019
Bhaliya Bhikhabhai Ramjibhai Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present petition is filed as Public Interest Litigation with following prayers:-

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have no right whatsoever to uproot and shift the slum dwellers irrespective of they being registered as slum dwellers or not as per the Gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1973. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the scheme under which the so-called rehabilitation is offered also requires payment of shelling out of sizeable amount by the beneficiary, which also is not in accordance with the scheme, as while offering rehabilitation there ought not to have been any requirement of payment on the part of the occupant.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 submitted that entire petition is, in fact, ill-conceived and deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has, in fact, created undue hurdle in the way of the beneficiary for which the petition is filed, else they would have by now perhaps got some respite on account of implementation of the offer and scheme. The petitioner has conveniently ignored the fact that the very notice at page 18 contains three sets of settlement, which require to be cleared in appropriate legal manner and the present petitioner has pleaded for the encroachment surrounding Vadsar Pond. There are, in fact, all attempts to settle this people and the other occupants/encroachers, who attempted to obtain some orders from the Court, which, in fact, failed and deprecated by the Court. He invited Court's attention to the orders passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9044 of 2016 with Civil Application No.6797 of 2016 and in the proceedings of Writ Petition (PIL) No.73 of 2017 with Civil Application (for interim relief) No.1 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.3.2019 and laid emphasis upon the elaborate discussion in respect of lack of right and justification on the part of the petitioners and the beneficiary to seek rehabilitation as a matter of right at the place of choice and without payment of minimum amount, which is required to be paid by way of beneficiary contribution under the scheme of their choice.