Gandhi Ashram Revamp: Gujarat HC Rejects Resident's Plea For 4 Housing Units, Says Compensation Granted By Collector 'Benevolent'

In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court dismissed plea of a long-term resident living in the precincts of the Gandhi Ashram challenging the compensation granted to her under the Ashram re-development policy, seeking additional housing units and financial compensation as offered to the other residents who were rehabilitated. In doing so the High Court upheld the decision of the District Collector observing that the compensation granted to the resident was "benevolent" and beyond the rehabilitation policy. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner resident submitted she had been working with the respondent Trust since 1983 and living in a house in the Gandhi Ashram precincts since 1990 as a tenant with her husband and three sons. He then submitted that the state government created the Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust (MGSAMT) in 2021 for the development of the Ashram that required the residents including the petitioner to surrender their premises.Justice Nikhil Kariel in its order referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tinku vs State of Haryana & Ors. wherein it was held that if some wrong benefit has been conferred or some benefit which is contrary to the scheme has been granted, it would not bestow a right upon the others to claim it as a right of equality by reference to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court thus held “In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner having been granted one unit as per the policy of the respondents and since the petitioner is being granted even something beyond the policy of the respondents, no interference is required at this stage”.Justice Kariel observed that the claim of the petitioner was governed by the policy which appeared in an order passed by the division bench of the high court in September 2022. The policy offered three rehabilitation options for the residing families within the precincts of the Gandhi Ashram that included 4BHK in prime location or 3BHK tenement nearby the Ashram or a financial compensation of Rs. 60 Lakh.The petitioner had claimed a better offer for 4 housing units for herself, her husband and her 2 sons, one married son who had children, who was residing in the same house. The Court however observed that the Collector found there were two families in the property for which he allowed Rs 60 lakh for one unit and for another half unit Rs 30 lakhs. The Collector had also observed the utility records, which showed the existence of a separate residential house of one married son.The court reasoned that residential place of the other resident was over three times bigger than the residential area of the petitioner and was adequate for the four units granted to them. Thus, it found the claim of the petitioner, having been paid equitably under the policy, not justified to have the extra benefits.It said, “To this Court, it would appear that such a request made by the present petitioner is absolutely misconceived. The policy, as noted hereinabove, inter alia envisages three different options and whereas, since the petitioner has not chosen any specific option as regards the property, the third option of the amount of compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- decided by the Collector as the compensation which could be awarded to the petitioner in lieu of being one unit i.e. one family unit and whereas it also prima facie appears that the Collector has gone a step further and has granted Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioner benevolently beyond the entitlement of the petitioner.”It finally ruled that the petitioner had received more than what was entitled to be received under the policy, hence no further benefits could be claimed. It said “This Court hastens to add that the above observations may not be treated as this Court having given any finding on the said issue. Suffice it to state that the petitioner having been given an option as per the policy, it would not be open for the petitioner to approach this Court for invoking writ / discretionary jurisdiction of this Court seeking to be granted something beyond the policy itself. The law on this issue is well settled that writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by requesting that since the State has committed a mistake / illegality in case of one person, the State may be directed by a writ of this Court to commit the same error / illegality in case of petitioner also. To put it pithily, there cannot be any direction by the Court against the State to perpetuate any illegality.”The Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that she was not fairly compensated as compared to the other similar situated persons. He contended that her family should be considered as four different units whereas the order of the collector had granted compensation for one and a half units to the petitioner. It was also submitted that the compensation given to one of the residents was four different units despite living in a single residence and the petitioner contended to be...

Gandhi Ashram Revamp: Gujarat HC Rejects Resident's Plea For 4 Housing Units, Says Compensation Granted By Collector 'Benevolent'

Lovina B Thakkar

Tags