'Can't Shirk Responsibility': Gujarat High Court Questions Surat Municipal Corp Charging Residents For Rehabilitation After 'Illegal' Demolition

The Gujarat High Court on Monday (August 10) asked the Surat Municipal Corporation that under what authority of law it is seeking charges to rehabilitate the residents of Nasir Nagar who lost their homes to a demolition drive.

It also asked the State Government to inform as to why Surat Municipal Commissioner and senior officers of the Police department were being permitted to continue on their posts, pending an inquiry into the matter. 

The court was hearing a plea by a group of residents concerning the demolition drive which was carried out in Surat's Nasir Nagar. 

After hearing the parties, Justice Nikhil S Kariel  in his order dictated:

"Under such circumstance to this court it would require, the State and Corporation are required to answer that under what authority the corporation is seeking to rehabilitate persons whose residences were demolished prima facie without authority of law, by seeking charges from them which applicant would have to make under EWS scheme.

State would have to also answer why senior officers of the corporation including municipal commissioner and senior officers of the police department including DCP SOG (Special operations group) are permitted to continue on the posts, inspite of State directing inquiry including the role of municipal commissioner and DCP etc. Let such instructions be taken".

The court took note of an affidavit submitted by the State issuing a resolution in furtherance of its earlier resolution dated 18-07-2026 laying down terms of reference with respect to an inquiry being conducted into the drive. 

"A perusal of the terms of reference reflects that the Committee constituted vide a resolution dated 18-07-2026, would inquire into whether the demolition had been carried out after following due process under Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act...The committee would also look into the role of the municipal commissioner as well as the role of the police officers present at the site of demolition. The committee would also be looking at role of private individuals. The committee is empowered to recommend  appropriate action at the administrative level or disciplinary proceedings against concerned officers. 

As per the terms of earlier resolution the committee would be concluding inquiry in 2 months from date of original resolution i.e. 18-07-2026. Considering resolution dt. 18-07-2026 and terms of reference of 7-8-2026, the question would have to be answered by State is that an inquiry into prima facie illegality of such a high magnitude has been initiated by the State, more particularly the inquiry committee consisting of senior most officers of State and terms of reference also reflecting seriousness and earnest interest the State has attached to the issue, then  why should officers against whom allegations are should continue at post in question till inquiry is conducted?" the court said in its order. 

The court said that it appears that when Corporation has taken action against its junior officers, against whom there were allegations of prima facie misconduct, then the senior most officers as well as police department officers against whom there are allegations, should also not be permitted to continue till investigation is over. 

While the court said that it was not suggesting that prima facie action of suspending the officers be adhered to, but at the same time, to ensure that "Justice is Seen To Be Done", it would be imperative that the officers, however senior he or she maybe, should not be permitted to be permitted to continue on the post till the committee inquires into the issue.

"...when role of officers are being looked into, by a committee consisting of senior officers, then permitting them to continue on post in question, particularly when statements of persons junior to them or working under their direct supervision would have to be taken, then allowing the said persons to man the posts would result in the inquiry being nothing but a farce," the court said. 

On the issue of rehabilitation of the residents whose homes were demolished the court took note of an additional affidavit filed by the Corporation that the persons whose residences were demolished are not cooperating in rehabilitation process. 

Attention of the court was also drawn to a policy of the State for allotting residences under EWS scheme, wherein the persons were under the scheme were required to make certain payments to avail scheme including draft of Rs. 20,000 etc. 

It was submitted by the Advocate General that since certain reputed NGOs have come forward to help, they may be permitted to make payment on behalf of petitioners and other affected persons.

"To this court, such course of action would not be permissible. The State and Surat Municipal Corporation could not be permitted to shirk the responsibility as regards persons whose residences have been demolished without any authority of law. While Advocate General would try and contend that probably demolition was justified, yet to this court the submission is nothing but an afterthought on part of the Corporation. The very first affidavit filed by the Municipal Commissioner, clearly reflects the fact that demolition was without any authority of law.

More particularly the demolition being carried out by officers, who were under authority to only to go to the spot for demarcation. It is also prima facie clear that even the exercise of demarcation...was without any underlined decision to have permitted the officers to demarcate the property. It also prima facie appears to this court that demolition was prima facie well planned exercised by officers of the corporation for whatever reasons there maybe in as much as while it was very clear to the officers that their remit was only demarcation exercise, torrent power corporation which supplies electricity was intimated well in advance as regards the Corporation intending to carry out a demolition activity," the high court said. 

It further said in its order, that the concerned officers had gone with heavy machinery which would not have been used for demarcation purpose and there was also heavy police bandobast, which reflects that the exercise was "well planned" and the idea was that in the guise of demarcation the properties be demolished. 

"This being the prima facie opinion of the court the corporation and state government ought not to have attempted to foist the cost of getting allotment in EWS scheme upon the affected families. To this court it would appear that legal or otherwise, if there is a property, and demolition has to be resorted, the basic requirement would be that authority would have to follow due process...the due process was completely flouted.

The burden of ensuring that persons whose residences were demolished would lie squarely on shoulders of corporation and vicariously on the State authorities. The corporation, otherwise being required to ensure that the residences get rebuilt or persons get accommodation through its schemes. The corporation seeking to extract money from the persons whose houses were demolished is furthering illegality which had been propounded by them in the first place by demolishing the residences without any authority of law," the court dictated. 

The matter is listed on August 12. 

Case title: ANSARI M. IKBAL ALIHUSEN & ORS. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8712 of 2026