Illegal Encroachment Over Pond: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Residents' Plea Challenging Notices To Vacate Govt Land

The Gujarat High Court on Friday (November 28) dismissed pleas by 77 individuals challenging notices to vacate possession of a premises stated to be water body in Ahmedabad, observing that the construction was unauthorized, done without any permission and the occupants lacked ownership. 

Justice Mauna M Bhatt in her order noted that the pleas were filed challenging notices dated 6-11-2025 where petitioners are directed to give peaceful vacant possession within 21 days.

"In the notice the pollution created by residents of that area is also referred to...It is true that the notices refer to revenue survey no. 258 in Town Planning Scheme Naroda, Plot No. 14/2 wherein in Kamal Talav has been situated. It is noticed that the polluted pond is visibly seen...Taking into consideration the submission of petitioner that they are in occupation of premises since many years cannot be disputed," the court noted. 

The court however was of the opinion that "long possession over the property shall not create any ownership right" and even though in this case the electricity bills, property tax and other related documents establish long occupation; however "not a single document is produced justifying the ownership over the property or the construction done with prior permission of the municipal corporation". 

The court said:

"Therefore, admittedly, in the opinion of this court, the construction done is unauthorizedly done without there being any development permission in favour of the petitioner, as also on the land which is not in the ownership of petitioner. On the contrary the documents annexed along with the petition (annexure 4, page 226, 227) refers to 7/12 extract and form F prepared by town planning authority which refers to ownership of land with the state government. Therefore the submission canvassed that no construction is permitted on a government land merits acceptance. Therefore it is an admitted fact that in this petition all the petitioners have created construction unauthorizedly on a government land which is a water body. There is no denial to the fact that survey no. 258 refers to a water body where kamal talav is situated. The map justifies existence of kamal talav...from the notice it is evident that construction done on revenue survey no. 258 being water body deserves to be vacated or otherwise appropriate action permissible under provisions of the act needs to be taken by municipal corporation"

The court thereafter referred to Supreme Court's decision  in Kaniz Ahmed v/s Sabuddin & Others where the apex court had dismissed a petition seeking the regularization of an unlawful building in Kolkata, emphasizing that no leniency should be shown towards such violations and that the structure must be demolished.

It further referred to Mirza Abid Beg v. State of UP & Ors where apex court had held that State has the constitutional duty to not only protect water bodies within the state but also to restore those water bodies which have been illegally filled in.

"Therefore in the opinion of this court when the law is settled no construction is permissible unauthorizedly either on government land or on water body this court could not see any illegality or error in notices issued by the corporation," the court said. 

The petitioners had challenged notices dated 6-11-2025 directing them to give peaceful vacant possession of their premises within 21 days. A reference of construction done a water body was mentioned in the notices. The notices dated 6-11-2025 has been served to all the petitioners individually. 

The petitioner's counsel submitted on instruction that the notices are required to be quashed because the petitioners are residents of revenue survey no 257 and are having residences since many years.The counsel relied upon electricity bills as also the property tax bills to justify their long occupancy. It was submitted that petitioners are residing on revenue survey number 257 as is evident from electricity bill and tax bill wherein the residential details reference to revenue survey no. 257 is made. 

It was submitted that since petitioners details with regard to their residence have been referred as revenue survey number 257, petitioners are of the belief that they are residing in 257 despite that a notice has been issued to all the petitioners referring to revenue survey no. 258. It was argued that without assessment of area in question the notices were issued. 

The notices refer to the development of a pond and it also refers to an encroachment being done on the water body and since the development and beautification of the pond is to be done the possession is required to be given to municipal corporation being implementing authority. The petitioners however claimed that they were not residing over a water body but their residences are around a water body. Allegation of plastic waste and pollution created in a pond area is erroneous. 

Counsel for the corporation invited the court's attention to the notice to submit that it refers to election ward no. 11 of sardar nagar of Naroda having revenue survey no. 258. The notice also states that in survey no. 258 (in plot no. 14/2) there is a pond and the state government has directed respondents to do development and beautification of the pond. The notice also refers that the resident of that area by creating encroachment has polluted the water body and thus the encroachment is to be removed. 

It was argued that the electricity bills and tax bills cannot be authenticated documents to establish ownership and the petitioners were encroachers on a water body. Moreover it was a government land and no encroachment over it is permissible, more so on a water body. 

By referring to the map of the land in question, the corporation's counsel submitted that it shows encroachment on revenue survey no. 258 which is a pond. All the petitioners are situated in their residences in the pond land which is evident from the map. It was argued that no encroachment or construction is permissible on a water body. Further the notices were giving petitioner's sufficient time to vacate.

The petitioner's contended that the notices have been issued for revenue survey no. 258 whereas petitioners are residing in revenue survey no. 257; to this the counsel for corporation referred to the map and submitted that in the map for structure no. 31 petitioner 1 has filed the plea. "This he said falls under revenue survey no. 258 which is the water body," the order notes.

"Even otherwise if the petitioners are not falling part of 258 then no cause has arisen for them to challenge the notice," the court said.

The court however said that it would be open for the petitioners to make appropriate application before the corporation for rehabilitation and if such applications are made by the petitioner, then the same shall be decided by the corporation in accordance with law.

Case title: ASHOKBHAI KANJIBHAI CHAVDA & ORS. v/s AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. and another petition 

R/SCA/15965/2025 & R/SCA/15979/2025 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 200