Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Demolition In Ahmedabad Slum Area

Considering a litigant's plea that demolition action was being carried out in a slum area of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, despite a Court protection being in place, the Supreme Court today ordered that status quo shall be maintained at the site till the next date of hearing.

For context, the matter was mentioned yesterday before the Supreme Court, when the Court granted protection against demolition till Monday (April 28). Today, as demolition action was sought to be carried out at the site, the matter was mentioned again on behalf of the petitioner seeking urgent relief.

It was taken on board by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which impressed upon the petitioner's counsel, AoR Sumitra Kumari Choudhary, to take instructions, insofar as slum dwellers need to be relocated for redevelopment purposes.

When the counsel submitted that the rent being paid to the petitioner/slum-dwellers for alternate accommodation is only Rs.6000 and even a slum cannot be arranged in that amount, the bench suggested that they take alternate accommodation at whatever rent is being offered and assured that the Court will take care of the differential amount.

The matter has been posted to April 28, till which time, the Court has said that status quo shall be maintained.

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

Click here to read the order