Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 177 (GUJ)

Joseph Peter Christian v. State of Gujarat

2019-02-28

A.C.RAO, J.B.PARDIWALA

body2019
JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act is at the instance of the original petitioner of a Special Civil Application and is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the Special Civil Application No.554/2015, by which the learned Single Judge rejected the writ-application filed by the appellant herein. 2. The appellant preferred the Special Civil Application No.2553/2013 with the following prayers: "7(A) That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to allot to the present petitioner alternative residential accommodation. (B) That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to allot to the present petitioner alternative residential accommodation. Till and pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (C) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may require." 3. It is the case of the appellant that he was residing in a small hut constructed on the banks of river Sabarmati in Ahmedabad. The authorities undertook a demolition drive by which all the hutment dwellers settled adjacent to the river bed came to be evicted. This action gave rise to a litigation in a nature of Public Interest Litigation and in the said Public Interest Litigation various directions were issued for rehabilitation of the evicted persons. It is the case of the appellant that a scrutiny was undertaken of all those persons who were residing at the place concerned and thereafter, all those persons were allotted alternative accommodation. As he was also residing along with his family, he should also have been provided the alternative accommodation. However, according to the appellant, for no good reason, his name did not figure in the final list and he was not allotted the alternative accommodation. In such circumstances, he had to come before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No. 2553/2013. 4. The respondents appeared before the learned single Judge and filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply. 5. However, according to the appellant, for no good reason, his name did not figure in the final list and he was not allotted the alternative accommodation. In such circumstances, he had to come before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No. 2553/2013. 4. The respondents appeared before the learned single Judge and filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply. 5. After hearing both the sides and after considering the materials on record, the learned Single Judge by order dated 08.01.2016 rejected the writ-application holding as under: "3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.3 has filed a detailed affidavit, wherein it is found that even after giving personal hearing, the petitioner is not found to be included in 3 lists of project affected persons. Even this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not in a position to even remotely point out that he was staying in the area which is affected by Sabarmati River Front Project. Reliance upon the ration card, on the contrary, shows that originally Sarifabibi might be staying with the husband and the family members, wherein by an amendment dated 17.1.2012, name of the petitioner is added as the husband. However, the fact remains that in 2012, the River Front Project had already come up. There is no iota of any evidence to even remotely say that the petitioner is project affected person. 4. Considering the submissions made and the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.3 herein, it is found that the respondents adhered to the earlier order passed by the Division Bench and pursuant to the order passed in earlier petition filed by the petitioner, have considered the case of the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is called for. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notice discharged. There shall be no order as to costs." 6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ-application, the appellant has come up with this appeal. 7. Mr. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in rejecting the writ-application. He would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the materials on record. Mr. 7. Mr. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in rejecting the writ-application. He would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the materials on record. Mr. Khan would submit that the materials on record would indicate that the appellant was residing in a hut constructed on the river bed, however, in the records of the Corporation, the name of his wife figured. The wife passed away. He would further submit that he had also applied before the Sabarmati River Front Development Corporation Ltd. for alternative accommodation with necessary evidence. He would submit that three lists were prepared by the Corporation and those three lists were ultimately looked into by Mr. Justice D.P. Buch committee. However, as the name of the appellant was not included in those three lists, the appellant was not granted any alternative accommodation. 8. Mr. Khan submitted that his client is a very poor person and is badly in need of alternative accommodation. He submitted that his client is also entitled to alternative accommodation as one of the affected persons in the project. 9. This appeal has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively. A detailed affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 opposing this appeal. 10. Mr. Trivedi would submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ-application filed by the appellant herein. He would submit that no interference is called for at the end of this Court in this appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that there are highly disputed questions of fact involved in this litigation. For the time being, even if we proceed on the footing that the appellant was residing somewhere near the river bed and was evicted on account of the demolition drive launched by the authorities, it is difficult for us to ascertain whether he had applied at the right time before the right authority with the necessary evidence on record. For the time being, even if we proceed on the footing that the appellant was residing somewhere near the river bed and was evicted on account of the demolition drive launched by the authorities, it is difficult for us to ascertain whether he had applied at the right time before the right authority with the necessary evidence on record. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ application in clear terms has observed that the appellant has not been in a position to remotely point out that he was staying in an area affected by the Sabarmati River Front Project. In such circumstances referred to above, it is difficult for this Court in this appeal to take the view that the appellant herein is entitled to alternative accommodation. We are of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ-application. In view of the above, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.