Long Possession Doesn't Grant Ownership: Gujarat High Court Directs Power Of Attorney Holder To Remove Encroachment From Footpath

The Gujarat High Court recently directed a power of attorney holder to remove encroachment over a public footpath observing that long possession will not create any ownership right adding that the party had failed to prove that they were owner of the property in question.

The court was hearing a woman's plea challenging notice dated 20.11.2025 directing her to remove encroachment done on a public footpath within 15 days.

Justice Mauna M Bhatt in her order said:

"It is noticed that long possession will not create any ownership right in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner in this case has failed to establish that the petitioner is owner of subject premises in question. In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the title fo the property cannot be decided. Moreover, the submission that the notice dated 20.11.2025 of eviction is not issued to the petitioner merits acceptance. The petitioner being the encroacher is rightly directed to remove the encroachment and there being no illegality in the notice dated 20.11.2025, this petition deserves to be rejected".

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner is a Power of Attorney holder of the property in question in Krushnanagar, Naroda, Ahmedabad. It was submitted that the petitioner is holding Power of Attorney from the original holder of the property and therefore she is the owner of the premises.

It was submitted that tax bills and other bills were regularly paid to the Municipal Corporation and therefore the petitioner being the owner of the property, is entitled to such construction which she has done.

It was submitted that before issuance of notice dated 20.11.2025, the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Gujarat Housing Board Act has not been followed.

It was submitted that the original allottee of the property in question has given Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, from that year the petitioner is maintaining and paying taxes for this property. It was submitted that the petitioner is in possession of this property since many years and since the notice was issued without following the procedure and in breach of principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

It was submitted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the notice dated 20.11.2025 and therefore, the petitioner may not be dispossessed from the property in question.

The counsel for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation submitted that petitioner has no locus to file the petition because the notice dated 20.11.2025 is not issued to the petitioner and the name of the petitioner is handwritten. Factually notice has been issued to the original allottee of the property in question who has agreed for redevelopment as per the provisions of the Gujarat Housing Board Act. Moreover, the encroachment from the photographs is evident on the footpath which under any law is not permissible.

It was submitted that Power of Attorney on which reliance was placed by the petitioner is not from the original allottee but by some third party.

The court dismissed the petition.

Case title: RANJANA MULCHANDBHAI SHITLANI v/s GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD & ORS

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16501 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order