Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Demolition In Ahmedabad Slum Area For Redevelopment Purposes

The Supreme Court today dismissed a litigant's plea against demolition action sought to be carried out in a slum area of Ahmedabad, Gujarat for redevelopment purposes. The Court, however, gave liberty to the litigant to make a representation before the competent authority for a "sympathetic" reconsideration of their requirement for larger alternative accommodation.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter. Earlier, while ordering status quo, it had asked AoR Sumitra Kumari Choudhary (for the petitioner) to take instructions insofar as relocation of the slum dwellers was necessary for the site to be redeveloped. The Court had further suggested that the petitioner take alternative accommodation at whatever rent was being offered and said that it would take care of the differential rent amount.

Today, Choudhary submitted that the petitioner has not been informed as to why their objections (to a Public Notice regarding the slum area) were rejected. However, Justice Kant noted that 508 beneficiaries had already shifted to alternative accommodation under the rehabilitation scheme. "You allow this project to continue", the judge told Choudhary.

Government Pleader Gursharan H Virk appeared for the respondents and apprised the Court that the number of beneficiaries were infact 740. He submitted that out of 741 occupiers of illegal slum structures, 740 accepted the rehabilitation scheme and only the petitioner's family was objecting.

At this point, Choudhary highlighted that the alternative accommodation being offered under the rehabilitation scheme is much smaller (225 sq ft) than the petitioner's (2000 sq ft). "How is it rehabilitation fit for human...?", she questioned. Justice Kant replied to the same, saying, "That, we can't satisfy everybody's claim".

The judge dictated the order thus : "We are not inclined to interfere with the ongoing project. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it will not preclude the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authority for sympathetic reconsideration of the requirement of a larger area to be offered to them. It goes without saying, such representation shall be examined in accordance with the scheme of rehabilitation".

Background

Briefly put, 49 slum dwellers occupying premises in Chharanagar, Ahmedabad approached the Gujarat High Court against a Public Notice dated 29.01.2025, whereby they were directed to vacate the premises within 30 days. This Notice made reference to Sections 11 and 13 of the Gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement, clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1973.

Besides quashing of the Notice, the slum dwellers prayed that they be considered under the Slum Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the state and action be taken against the erring officer for carrying out demolition on 20.03.2025. They contended that they were not served notice individually. Only a Notice through publication was served and the time given to vacate was not sufficient. As such, there was violation of provisions of the Slum Act.

The State, on the other hand, averred that the area was not safe for health and habitation of its inhabitants. In 2019, it was declared as "Slum Area" and for the redevelopment, a work order was issued to a private developer. After this decision, a Public Notice was issued. Objections were invited and considered, and thereafter the prescribed Committee under the Slum Act rejected the objections, deciding to recommend declaration of Chharanagar as "Slum Clearance Area". Following this, another Notice was issued and pasted at multiple locations in the slum area, directing the affected persons to remove illegal and unauthorized structures within 1 month.

The State further contended that all structures in question were illegal and unauthorized. It was also claimed that the 49 slum dwellers approached the High Court after a delay of 4 yrs (since the Notification) just to hamper the progress of slum rehabilitation area, whereas several others were already receiving benefits under the rehabilitation scheme and the project progressing at a brisk pace.

The High Court rejected the slum dwellers' petition, observing that the action taken was in consonance with the Slum Act since declaration of the area in question as “Slum Clearance Area” was not in dispute. Further, as 7 residential blocks with 7 floors had already been constructed, it could not be accepted that the 49 slum dwellers were not aware because they were not individually served.

The High Court noted that 508 beneficiaries were already living in rented premises and awaiting grant of new housing. Also, it was not the case of the slum dwellers before it that they were eligible as per rehabilitation policy but their cases had not been considered.

"In the affidavit, it is stated in para-21 that if petitioners are eligible slum-dwellers under the applicable policy, the said eligible persons will receive housing of good quality post redevelopment", the High Court observed.

Be that as it may, on their willingness to vacate the subject premises on their own, the Court granted 30 days' time to slum dwellers who would file undertaking before the authority that they would vacate the premises within a 30-day period.

Case Title: JADEJA BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT, Diary No. 20660/2025