Gujarat High Court Fines Gram Panchayat ₹1.20 Lakh For Demolishing Homes Without Following 'Due Process'

The Gujarat High Court fined a gram panchayat in Anand district Rs. 1,20,000 after prima facie observing that homes in a village in the district were demolished without following any due process of law. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 307]

The court however held that it would not interfere with regard to the issue of demolition as of yet, observing that it appeared that the properties were on a public road and not on private premises of the petitioners.

The court said that the Gram Panchayat had a "cause to undertake the demolition" yet the fact remained that it had "not followed the due process".

Justice Nikhil S Kariel in his order said:

"Having regard to the above observations in the considered opinion of this Court while this Court would not interfere as regards the issue as regards the demolition yet, since the demolition prima facie appears to be without following due process of law, while the District Development Officer, Anand, who has remained present on the hybrid mode, has been instructed to take appropriate corrective steps, some costs are also required to be imposed upon the Gram Panchayat...

Since the Gram Panchayt appears to have resorted to the process of demolition without following any due precess of law, cost quantified at Rs. 1,20,000/- i.e Rs. 20,000/- per person, is imposed upon the Gram Panchayat, to be paid individually to each of the petitioners i.e @ Rs. 20,000/- per petitioner".

The court was hearing a plea moved by persons raising a grievance that certain properties of the petitioners, have been demolished by the Gram Panchayat in Samarkha, Taluka and District Anand without following the due process and without affording appropriate opportunity.

The court noted that since a contention had been raised by the petitioners over lack of appropriate demarcation of the land on which the disputed construction exists and whether it was part of a public road or land belonging to the petitioners, a measurement was prepared by the District Inspector of Land Records (DILR). 

Since the same was not served upon the petitioners, a Co-ordinate Bench had on 13.10.2026 directed the DILR, Anand to submit the report, by filing an appropriate affidavit.

The court's attention was drawn to the report of the DILR as per which the DILR, after conducting measurement, had clearly opined that the properties which were demolished, were constructed on a public road and were not on the private land of the petitioners.

"Having considered the above, while it would appear that the properties were infact on a public road and not on a private premises of the petitioners, the only question would be as to whether the Panchayat, had followed the due process of law. It would appear in this regard that it is not the case of the Panchayat that the Panchayat had followed the procedure as envisaged under Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and whereas the only contention which is raised is that the petitioners were issued notice on three different occasions and whereas the Gram Panchayat thereafter, had passed a resolution that the properties of the petitioners are required to be demolished.

In this regard it would be apposite to note that against the notices issued by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioners had submitted a detailed representation, to the respondents, and whereas vide detailed representation on 20.05.2026. It would also appear perusing the resolution dated 01.06.2026 that is Resolution No. 220 of the Gram Panchayat that while the Gram Panchayat had referred to the notices issued by Gram Panchayat to the petitioners, there is no reference whatsoever as regards the contention as had been taken by the petitioners as regards the properties of the petitioners being on the private property and not on the public road. This Court also notices that except for referring to the fact that there is an encroachment on 256 square meters of land, no further application of mind is reflected in the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat," the court said. 

The court said that it appeared "very clearly" that a copy of the Resolution, whereby the Gram Panchayat had decided to demolish the properties in question, had never been provided to the petitioners. 

"While it appears that the Gram Panchayat is contending as regards a communications/ notice dated 05.06.2026 issued to the petitioners intimating to them as regards the decision of the Gram Panchayat to demolish the properties on 08.06.2026 yet, neither the resolution whereby the Gram Panchayat had decided to demolish the properties had been provided to the petitioners nor there was any reference in the said  communication as regards resolution dated 01.06.2026.

To this Court it is unfathomable that a communication, whereby the Gram Panchayat would decide to demolish properties of the private individual, would not have any reference to have resolution of the Gram Panchayat whereby the Gram Panchayat had decided to go ahead with the decision of demolishing the properties not being mentioned," the court said.

The court said that while it "may or may not interfere with the substantive prayers made in the petition" yet the fact remained that the absence of the Gram Panchayat complying with due procedure, is "glaring" which would require appropriate corrective steps.

The court however also observed that the Court cannot ignore the fact that the DILR being an independent authority, in its affidavit as well as report, had clearly opined that the petitioners have encroached upon road of the village in question.

Thus, while the court said that the grievance of the petitioners as regards the demolition having been carried out is not countenanced and rejected the same, it however imposed cost on the panchayat over the lack of due process. 

The court directed the District Development Officer, Anand to conduct an inquiry into whether the Gram Panchayat had passed the resolution dated 01.06.2026, before the demolition was effected or whether the resolution was an afterthought/ backdated, and further directed the DDO/Competent authority to take appropriate action.

It further clarified that the order was "prima facie observation" of the court and the terms of the inquiry could be appropriately modified by the DDO/ competent authority.

Appearance: Advocate Mr. Prashant Chavda appeared for petitioners, Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh appeared for State, Advocate Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar appeared for respondents no. 3 and 4 and Advocate Ms. Niyati Chauhan appeared for respondents no. 9 and 10.