The Gujarat government on Wednesday (May 28) defended its move before the High Court to evict residents from certain plots near Ahmedabad’s Narendra Modi Stadium, citing plans to widen the road in preparation for India's bid to host the 2036 Summer Olympics.
A vacation bench of Justice J.L. Odedra reserved its verdict after hearing both sides. “Heard learned advocates for the parties. Reserved for orders,” the court noted.
The matter concerns two petitions challenging the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s order dated May 21, which directed the petitioners to vacate their plots and hand over actual possession within seven days, failing which eviction proceedings under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act and Rule 33 of the corresponding Rules would follow.
The state, through its counsel, argued that the eviction orders were lawful and necessitated by long-standing urban development plans. The disputed area lies near the stadium, where a 24-metre wide road is proposed under the sanctioned town planning (TP) scheme finalized in 1983 and implemented in 1984.
"The TP scheme is being implemented in phases, as city needs grow. The road is essential for infrastructure development linked to the Olympic bid. The land in question is not part of Final Plot (FP) 486, which is reserved for slum upgradation. That plot remains untouched. Residents of FP 486 will be surveyed and accommodated if eligible under the Slum Act,” the counsel submitted.
The State further pointed out that the petitioners had never objected to the town planning scheme at any stage over the past four decades. “It’s too late to challenge the scheme now. The plea is barred by delay and laches. Public interest outweighs individual inconvenience,” the State argued.
The petitioners countered that the land was originally privately owned and had been legally purchased. They have been residing on the land for decades with permanent residential structures in place.
They alleged that implementation of the TP scheme after 41 years demonstrates that there was no pressing need for a road all these years. “The proposed road cuts through fully built-up areas with structures over 50 years old. That’s why the scheme was not implemented earlier,” argued the petitioners' counsel.
Challenging the eviction notice, the petitioners also claimed violations of natural justice, stating that their objections were not considered, and the estate officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate eviction. They relied on the Supreme Court's directions in In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, alleging non-compliance with those guidelines.
“They are giving us seven days to file objections, but at the same time ordering us to vacate within ten days. Our objections have not been dealt with, no reasons are provided in the order, and thus the matter deserves to be remanded,” the counsel argued.
Umesh Pravinbhai Makwana & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & connected petitions
Case No.: R/SCA/7325/2025
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy