The Gujarat High Court has issued notice on a plea moved by a shop owner from Anjar Taluka Bazaar in Kutch, alleging that the Chief Officer of Anjar Municipality (respondent no 3) illegally demolished 8 out of 40 shops.

The bench of Justice Aniruddha P Mayee observed:

"Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. In addition, Direct Service is permitted for the respondent No.3".

According to the petition, the petitioner had been in possession of the shops for more than 30 years. It was claimed that the shop, along with around 40 others, had, over the years, become part of the cultural heritage of Anjar.

The dispute arose on July 2, 2026, when the Anjar Nagar Palima issued a show-cause notice to the employee of the petitioner who was present at the shop. The petition claimed that he responded to the notice on the following day.

However, according to the petition, the Chief Officer of the Municipality (respondent no. 3) subsequently visited the petitioner on July 4 and verbally informed him that the shops would be demolished the following morning.

The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation to the Chief Officer through WhatsApp, requesting that no demolition be carried out. Despite this, it was alleged that the Chief Officer arrived with a bulldozer and proceeded to demolish eight shops.

The petitioner also placed on record a video allegedly showing shop owners requesting the municipal authorities not to proceed with the demolition.

The plea further stated that the petitioner had been regularly paying lease rent to Nagar Palik. It was argued that the authority's action was without jurisdiction and that the Chief Officer could not have demolished the property which is in the possession of a private citizen without any order from a competent court.

The petition also alleged that the show-cause notice was a mere formality since the decision to demolish the shops had already been taken before the notice was issued.

Another contention raised was that the municipal authority had failed to explain why only certain shops were targeted for demolition. The Chief Officer had alleged that the demolition of the shops was a "trial run" and that authorities would consider the demolition of the remaining shops at a later stage.

The petition also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, in which the Apex Court had laid down safeguards concerning demolition of properties while cautioning the State against arbitrary exercise of executive power.

The petition also alleged that the Chief Officer had effectively acted as both "judge and executioner" by deciding upon and executing the demolition without following due process. It was contended that the said actions violated the petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 300A, 19(1)(e), and 21 of the Constitution.

The petition accordingly prayed for a declaration that the demolition drive was illegal, along with consequential reliefs.

Case Title: Kasam Ismail Bayad v State of Gujarat, SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12302 of 2026

For Petitioner: Advocate Ronith Joy

GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

Click here to read/download the Order