"Pursue Municipal Corporation": Gujarat High Court Disposes Plea Against Notice For Removal Of '200-Yr-Old' Dargah For Road Widening

The Gujarat High Court on Monday (March 16) disposed of a petition challenging a notice issued by Navsari Municipal Corporation to a Dargah, stated to be 200-years-old, for its removal due to a road widening project.

The court disposed of the petition as the petitioners sought to withdraw the plea after informing that they had filed objections to the notice and wanted to pursue the matter before the municipal authority. 

During the hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted before Justice Niral R Mehta, "On the land in question there is a Dargah since almost 200 years. The problem is they have issued a notice under Section 210 of Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 for road widening. We have written to the authority that kindly consider the peculiar aspect of situation that dargah is there since 200 years. And instead of removing the dargah you can consider making a slight deviation". 

Section 210 empowers Municipal Commissioner to prescribe a line on one or both sides of any public street.

He said that a similar issue is pending consideration before the high court on non-compliance of Supreme Court's directions in In: Re Demolitions judgment. 

"A nodal committee should be formed wherever there is question of demolition of religious structure, dargah, mosque or even temple. Three things can be considered either regularization, or removing or relocating," he said. 

To this the court orally asked, "How is relocating possible?" to which the counsel said that it was not possible in the present case. 

"Therefore they can consider for regularizing or not disturbing it. Option of considering that the Dargah may not be demolished is also one of the options," he said. 

Attention of the court was drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court and the high court's order in the pending contempt matter. 

The court after perusing the orders orally said, "How can this be applicable to you? There is a difference. Is it a case that your Dargah is unauthorized?". To this the counsel said no. 

"Then this will not be applicable. This is only for purpose of those that...(are) unauthorized things on the road. This is just as good as a private thing. A Plot, a bungalow. This is not applicable to you," the court orally said. 

To this the petitioners' counsel said that Dargah was on a slightly better footing. 

"If this footing is considered then all road-widening matters, 210 this will come. So far as 210 is concerned it has be treated independently to all. This entire contempt proceeding in high courts and Supreme Court's directions is for purpose of unauthorized buildings. You cannot be said to be unauthorized," the court orally said. 

"Endless game then. Tomorrow somebody's...Forget temple and everything. Tomorrow, if same analogy, somebody's house is going road widening then?," the court orally asked. 

The counsel said that there were a large number of followers and so public interest was involved. To this the court said "public interest is also there as there are large number of passersby". 

The counsel submitted that the petitioners have filed objection to the notice. To this the court orally said, "Let them (respondent) consider then...Your pursue. You submitted reply? Wait for the outcome". 

As the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition the court in its order dictated, "Learned advocate does not press this petition in view of the fact that pursuant to the impugned notice the objections are already filed. Petitioners wishes to await for outcome to come". 

The petition was disposed of. 

Case title: PARVEZ YUNUSBHAI SHAIKH & ORS. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

R/SCA/6579/2025