Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1212 (GUJ)

MOGAL REHANABANU SAFIBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-12-15

BIREN VAISHNAV

body2021
ORDER : 1. Since facts of Special Civil Application No.2987 of 2016 are identical to that of Special Civil Application No.2985 of 2016, papers of Special Civil Application No.2987 of 2016 is called for from the Registry and now both the matters are being heard and disposed of together by this common oral order. 2. Heard Mr.P.V.Patadiya learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Meet Thakkar learned AGP for the respondent – State, Mr.Anuj Trivedi learned advocate for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (‘respondent - Corporation’ for short) and Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation Limited (‘SRDCL’ for short). 3. For the purposes of this order, facts of Special Civil Application No.2985 of 2016 are referred. 4. Prayer in this petition reads as under: “(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 by directing the respondent no.2 to acknowledge the necessary documents as well as fees mentioned in the letter dated 02-01-2012 for allotment of alternative residential accommodation to the petitioner. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition 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 by directing the respondent no.2 to acknowledge the necessary documents as well as fees as mentioned in the letter dated 02-01-2012 for allotment of alternative residential accommodation to the petitioner. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 not to allot residential accommodation to any other persons which has allotted to the petitioner by recommendation of Hon’ble D.P.Buch Committee.” 5. It is the case of the petitioner that she was residing at the Sabarmati Riverfront in a hut. The hut came to be demolished due to the development of the Sabarmati Riverfront and she was rendered homeless. Various PILs were filed for allotment of alternative accommodations for persons like the petitioner who were classified as Project Affected Families. The prayer was that the petitioner like the other Project Affected Families (PAFs) be allotted alternative accommodations. 6. Mr.P.V.Patadiya learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was entitled to being allotted a two room accommodation as specifically an allotment letter dated 02.01.2012 was issued to the petitioner. The prayer was that the petitioner like the other Project Affected Families (PAFs) be allotted alternative accommodations. 6. Mr.P.V.Patadiya learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was entitled to being allotted a two room accommodation as specifically an allotment letter dated 02.01.2012 was issued to the petitioner. Despite giving documents on record to the respondent – Corporation and the SRDCL, satisfying the criteria for allotment for such alternative accommodation, the petitioner was not allotted the accommodation for which the allotment letter dated 02.01.2012 was issued. 6.1 Mr.Patadiya would invite the attention of the Court to page 6 of the order passed in the first PIL being Special Civil Application No.6280 of 2005 and submit that in accordance with the order, alternative accommodation should be allotted. 6.2 Mr.Patadiya would also invite the attention of the Court to the correspondences that exchanged especially an application made, which is at page 12, by the petitioner for allotment, based on which the letter dated 02.01.2012 was issued. He would submit that the stand of the Corporation that because the family member of the petitioner has been allotted the accommodation, denial to the petitioner would be depreciation of an accommodation being allotted despite the issuance of latter of allotment dated 02.01.2012. 7. Mr.Anuj Trivedi learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation as well as for SRDCL would draw the attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed and submit that in pursuance of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.6280 of 2011, the Committee constituted pursuant to the litigation viz. Hon’ble Justice D.P.Buch Committee considered the application of the petitioner subject to the condition that none of the family members of the petitioner should have been provided an alternative accommodation. He would invite the attention of the Court to the letter dated 15.02.2011, letter dated 10.05.2011 and the reminder-third in line on 27.06.2011 asking the petitioner to furnish documents so as to substantiate the entitlement for allotment of accommodation. Inviting the attention of the Court to the application for the purposes of constituting a list of eligible allottees, Mr.Trivedi would draw attention to page 35 of the paper book and submit that the allotment would be made based on the election card, ration card etc. Inviting the attention of the Court to the application for the purposes of constituting a list of eligible allottees, Mr.Trivedi would draw attention to page 35 of the paper book and submit that the allotment would be made based on the election card, ration card etc. that may be furnished with the specific rider that in case there is an allotment made to the member of the family, the applicant would not be entitled to a residential accommodation. There was a draw of plots and based on which on 20.08.2011, the brother-in-law of the petitioner Saiyed Afzal Hussain Gulam was allotted the accommodation. 7.1 Inviting the attention of the Court to the letter of allotment, Mr.Trivedi would submit that the condition specifically stipulates that in view of the allotment already been made to the family member of the applicant, no allotment would be made to the applicant. Attention was drawn to page 15 and annexures to the reply to indicate that the petitioner as well as the brother-in-law who was allotteed the flat, reside at the same residential address. According to Mr.Trivedi, finally on 23.02.2015, the authority of the SRDCL passed a resolution closing the allotment in view of the fact that 10046 units have been allotted. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, in context of the prayer, what is evident is that initially Special Civil Application No.6280 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners - hut dwellers for accommodation. Reading of the order especially on the grievances raised by the PAFs, the Court was not inclined to issue any directions for rehabilitation except to observe that the rehabilitation project would be carried out after appropriate verification. Para 6 to 10 of the order read as under: “6.Learned Advocate General submits that if Hon'ble Justice D.P. Buch Committee recommends any inclusion of some more names on its own volition, the Corporation is ready to accommodate them and allot them certain units. He submits that it should not exceed more than 883 persons as extra 883 units are available, for the present, for allotment. 7. He submits that it should not exceed more than 883 persons as extra 883 units are available, for the present, for allotment. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that pursuant to the earlier observations some other persons who alleged that their names were not included in the earlier list, the petitioner has prepared a separate list of 883 persons with regard to whom the Corporation has agreed to allot if they are properly identified by Hon'ble Justice D.P. Buch Committee. It is informed that another list of around 550 has been submitted by another group, but somebody will have to verify whether they were actually residing in the slum in question. It is informed that all of them had applied earlier before Hon'ble Justice D.P.Buch Committee. 8. Some grievance has been made with regard to location of allocation to one or other PAFs family. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that every time number of persons cannot be added in the list for the purpose of rehabilitation. Originally, the Corporation identified 5964 PAFs. The petitioners allege that about 4390 PAFs were left out. With regard to aforesaid 10354 PAFs, direction has already been issued for their rehabilitation within the time stipulated by the Court with the consent of the Corporation. Subsequently, it was alleged that certain more persons have been left out. Now the petitioners state that 883 PAFs have been left out. On the other hand, another group states that another 550 PAFs have been left out. Thereby, total 1433 PAFs have been left out. 10. In this context, we may only mention that we are not inclined to issue any direction for rehabilitation of such persons without proper verification and identification. As suggested by the learned counsel for the Corporation, we allow the petitioners to submit the list of 883 persons before Justice D.P. Buch Committee. The other list of 550 persons be also submitted before Justice D.P. Buch Committee. Both the lists should be submitted within a week. On receipt of the aforesaid lists, Justice D.P. Buch Committee may find out from the record whether any one or other out of the aforesaid list has earlier applied for rehabilitation. The other list of 550 persons be also submitted before Justice D.P. Buch Committee. Both the lists should be submitted within a week. On receipt of the aforesaid lists, Justice D.P. Buch Committee may find out from the record whether any one or other out of the aforesaid list has earlier applied for rehabilitation. The persons, out of those two lists, whoever has applied for their rehabilitation before Justice D.P. Buch Committee, their names be segregated and the list be prepared by the said Committee, which list be forwarded to the Corporation. In such case, the Corporation, after proper verification and identification of such persons, out of the list submitted by Justice D.P. Buch Committee, will allot the units in the last phase by 15th December 2011. It is made clear that no further list will be entertained either by Justice D.P. Buch Committee or by this Court.” 9. Based on this, it cannot be said that the communication dated 02.01.2012 is an allotment of an accommodation by virtue of which the petitioner could claim right of allotment of accommodation. Reading of the letter would indicate that in the event it was found that there was allotment to the family, accommodation so allotted would be cancelled. Even otherwise reading of the letters would indicate that it was an exercise to carry out verification of allotment. 10. From the affidavit in reply and the documents annexed thereto what is emerging is that on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner, such as the election card, on a survey being carried out it was found that the family of the petitioner and that of Saiyed Afzal Hussain who was part of the same family as is evident from (page 38) was allotted the flat in lieu of being effected from the hutment at the Sabarmati Riverfront. Even the form filled in and the exercise carried out for verification would indicate that the petitioner and her brother-in- law were part of the same family. The addresses were the same as is evident from the copies of the election cards produced on record. 11. The condition clearly stipulated in the event the family member is allotted an accommodation, the other would not be so entitled. The addresses were the same as is evident from the copies of the election cards produced on record. 11. The condition clearly stipulated in the event the family member is allotted an accommodation, the other would not be so entitled. Having found that when the Committee found that the petitioner’s family member i.e. brother-in-law, has already been allotted accommodation, no further exercise was carried out to bring to a conclusion the communication dated 02.01.2012. Vide virtue of the letter dated 02.01.2012, no right was created in favour of the petitioner, particularly when she was staying with her brother-in-law. As his family was already allotted an alternative accommodation by a letter of 20.08.2011, no prayer can be made much less by seeking a writ of mandamus when in terms of the circular and the orders passed by this Court, an alternative accommodation has already been allotted to the member of the family. 12. Hence, in pursuance to the resolution dated 23.02.2015, no right occurs to the petitioner and the petition therefore deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged.