Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1330 (GUJ)

MANILAL SHAMJIBHAI BAVARVA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2022-10-11

SANDEEP N.BHATT

body2022
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP N. BHATT, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners by challenging the notices dated 30.03.2017, it is served upon the petitioners on 31.03.2017, upon 8.00 p.m. and on 01.04.2017 in the morning (Saturday), the demolition drive is carried out and therefore, the petitioner has modified the petition on the holiday and by praying to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when the matter is heard by learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court on 01.04.2017, the following order is passed: “1. This matter is circulated today on the basis of the permission granted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 2. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 3. It deserves to be noted that by an order dated 24.03.2017, this Court had disposed of the earlier petitions filed by the very petitioners being SCA Nos. 2226/17 to 2231/17, wherein the following is observed: “2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondent no. 3 has stated on oath as under: 11. I say that the Corporation without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions in support of their stand as regard lawfulness of their action and unsustainability of challenge made by the petitioner to such legal action in the present petition, has decided to withdraw the show cause notice dated 31.12.2016 issued to the petitioner by the Corporation. I say that in view of withdrawal of the said notice the order dated 3.02.2017 does not survive and the petition challenging the said order consequently becomes infructuous. I submit that no cause of action now survives for the petitioner to maintain the present petition and consequently the petition deserves to be dismissed in law. 12. I submit that the aforesaid decision of the Corporation does not bear recognition of any right, legal or law of the petitioner nor has it been taken because of mantainability and/or acceptability of any legal submission advanced by the petitioner in the present petition. I say that the decision to withdraw the show cause notice dated 3.02.2016 and cancel the order dated 3.02.2017 flowing from the said notice have been taken only with a view to avoid legal complications relating to authority of the Corporation in issuing the notice on the date on which it was issued by the Corporation. I say that the decision to withdraw the show cause notice dated 3.02.2016 and cancel the order dated 3.02.2017 flowing from the said notice have been taken only with a view to avoid legal complications relating to authority of the Corporation in issuing the notice on the date on which it was issued by the Corporation. I reiterate that the withdrawal of the notice and cancellation of order made thereunder therefore may not be construed as admission of any wrongdoing on the part of the Corporation. 13. I submit that the Corporation reserves the right and liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice, if any, as may be permissible in law, at a future date upon the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. In light of the aforesaid statement on affidavit by the Corporation as the notice impugned is withdrawn, the petitions do not survive. However, in case if any similar actions are taken, rights of both the parties are kept open. 4. It appears that on withdrawal of the said petitions the impugned notices issued on 30.03.2017 were served at 7.40 PM on 31.03.2017. The notices dated 30.03.2017 states that the construction in question is made without permission/unauthorised and in breach of the GDCR and on receipt of these notices, the same may be demolished/removed or else, immediate proceedings will be taken. It is informed that the notices have been implemented. It is unfortunate. Hence, Notice returnable on 06.04.2017. Ms. Akta Jadeja, learned advocate waives for respondents no. 3 and 5 and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP waives for respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 6. No further action shall be taken by the respondent Corporation and no change in position of the land which is the subject matter of this petition shall be made by the either parties. It is also stated that both the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have been given the full set of the paper book. 5. This order is passed today at 2.15 p.m. in presence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. D.S. is permitted today. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall inform their respective parties. The order be also communicated to the Police Commissioner as well as Commissioner of Municipal Corporation by fax as well as by e-mail at the cost of the petitioners.” 2. D.S. is permitted today. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall inform their respective parties. The order be also communicated to the Police Commissioner as well as Commissioner of Municipal Corporation by fax as well as by e-mail at the cost of the petitioners.” 2. Thereafter, the matter is adjourned from time to time and in the meantime, Civil Applications are also filed. More particularly, Civil Application No. 6063 of 2017 in Special Civil Application No. 6771 of 2017 is filed, whereby this Hon’ble Court has passed following order dated 04.05.2017: “1. Heard Mr. Mrugesh Barot, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Maulik G Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5. 2. By an order dated 1.4.2017, this Court while issuing notice in the main matter, this Court has observed thus: 4. It appears that on withdrawal of the said petitions the impugned notices issued on 30.03.2017 were served at 7.40 PM on 31.03.2017. The notices dated 30.03.2017 states that the construction in question is made without permission/unauthorised and in breach of the GDCR and on receipt of these notices, the same may be demolished/removed or else, immediate proceedings will be taken. It is informed that the notices have been implemented. It is unfortunate. Hence, Notice returnable on 06.04.2017. Ms. Akta Jadeja, learned advocate waives for respondents no. 3 and 5 and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP waives for respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 6. No further action shall be taken by the respondent Corporation and no change in position of the land which is the subject matter of this petition shall be made by the either parties. It is also stated that both the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have been given the full set of the paper book. 5. This order is passed today at 2.15 p.m. in presence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. D.S. is permitted today. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall inform their respective parties. The order be also communicated to the Police Commissioner as well as Commissioner of Municipal Corporation by fax as well as by e-mail at the cost of the petitioners.” 3. D.S. is permitted today. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall inform their respective parties. The order be also communicated to the Police Commissioner as well as Commissioner of Municipal Corporation by fax as well as by e-mail at the cost of the petitioners.” 3. By this application the applicants-original petitioners have prayed for permitting them to take out the goods which are enlisted at Annexure B, which are 12 in number (in general). 4. Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation states that after the order was passed by this Court, certain complaints have been lodged and certain goods are taken under the Panchnama. Be that as it may, the applicants-original petitioners are permitted to enter the land in question and on their own remove goods belonging to them from amongst the list at Annexure B if found on the site. It is clarified that this would not create any liability on any of the authorities and it is for the applicantsoriginal petitioners who claim to be the owners of the goods. Each of the petitioners shall file an undertaking in the main petition to the effect that they shall not raise any claim against any authority for the goods which are removed. Such undertaking shall be filed within one week from today. 5. This exercise shall be carried out by the applicants-original petitioners in the presence of the police authority. 6. The Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.” 3. In this background, the petition is heard for final disposal. 4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit for the petitioners, learned AGP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for respondent No. 1-State and learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavaty for Nanavaty and Co. for respondent No. 3- Corporation. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned action of the respondent-authority is totally illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and unreasonable as he has submitted that the show cause notices issued on 30.03.2017, which was served upon the petitioners on 31.03.2017 around 8 O’ Clock in the evening and the Corporation has demolished the premises of the petitioners on very next date morning on 01.04.2017 and that being (Saturday) and that particular day is selected by the respondent- authority with a view to see that petitioners cannot approach the Court of law. He has further submitted that the petitioners are residing over the plots registered with City Survey office as Old Revenue Survey No. 561, City Survey No. 2212 of Vadodara Kasba and the petitioners are residing in a kutcha-puckka houses over the plot area mentioned hereinabove. He has further submitted that more than 80 years as per the online property tax receipts issued by Vadodara Municipal Corporation, the petitioners and their four brothers are residing at the same plots. He has further submitted that the electoral list of the voters for the year 1967-1968 reflects the name of the grandfather of the present petitioners. 5.1. He has submitted that in the year 1974, due to some misconception introduction of city survey parcel of the land is illegally reflected as government land. He has further submitted that the land in question came to be included under the jurisdiction of Vadodara Municipal Corporation in July, 1950 under the provisions of BPMC Act, 1949 and thereafter, the Corporation has issued text receipts in the capacity of document to the petitioners for the year 1974 and for all the years thereafter. He has further submitted that the petitioners were served with the notices in the year 1979 by the Mamlatdar, Vadodara City exercising powers under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Upon the receipts of said notices, detailed reply was filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners were served upon the communication dated 16.05.1979 intimating the next date of hearing scheduled on 23.05.1979. Thereafter, nothing is heard. Thereafter, it transpires from the documents available with the present petitioners that one more notice dated 19.11.1984 by City Survey Office with similar contents as that of earlier notice was issued by the Mamlatdar. He has further submitted that on 16.01.1986, the notice came to be served upon by the Public Works Department, Bharuch (in short “PWD”) in the name of the petitioners to remove unauthorised construction of the permanent nature made over Government land and a detailed reply was tendered by the petitioners on 23.01.1986 and it seems that all the proceedings initiated in the year 1979 and 1984 under Section 61 of the B.L.R. Code seems to be pending since no nay hearing or final order came to be served/communicated to the petitioners and the said proceedings are pending as on date before the learned Mamlatdar and City Survey Superintendent. 5.2. 5.2. He has submitted that on 27.08.2009, a further notice came to be served upon the petitioners under Section 61 of the B.L.R. Code for eviction and removal of unauthorised construction under the pretext that the land belongs to State Government. The petitioners tendered reply tot he said show-cause notice on 05.10.2009. It is further contended by learned senior advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner that thereafter, the petitioners have preferred an application for regularization of the land in question vide application dated 23.12.2011 against payment of occupancy price. The petitioners submitted that till 2016 no communications received from any of the revenue authorities and on 31.12.2016 Notice is issued by the respondent No. 3 Vadodara Municipal Commissioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said notice, the present petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 12 of 2017. Since, notice was not issued under section 260 or 478 or quoting any provision of B.P.M.C. Act on broad concensus on 31.01.2017, the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2017 with certain observations and directions, by directing Municipal Corporation to hear the petitioners as well as the other similarly situated person by giving an opportunity to file reply along with the documentary evidence and accordingly the petition is disposed of. Petitioners were remained present at the time of hearing and without considering the details and documents submitted by the present petitioners, the Municipal Commissioner ordered to demolish the residential premises and directed to remove the construction within seven days. At that point of time the 13 similarly situated persons to whom, such notices were served, were withdrawn qua those 13 persons. 5.3. Thereafter, the petitioners also found that one Civil Suit is pending before the competent Civil Court with respect to property in question filed by the then Ruler of Gaikwad State against the State Government for declaration and injunction and the Online status of the said suit being 313 of 1989 shows as pending. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation the petitioner is constrained to file this petition being Special Civil Application Nos. 2226 to 2231 of 2017. In the said set of petitions, the respondent-Corporation has also filed reply that they have withdrawn the notices in which the order came to be passed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation the petitioner is constrained to file this petition being Special Civil Application Nos. 2226 to 2231 of 2017. In the said set of petitions, the respondent-Corporation has also filed reply that they have withdrawn the notices in which the order came to be passed. Therefore, the petitions were disposed of by order dated 24.03.2017 by this Hon’ble Court, thereafter within 6 days 2nd notice was issued for the same cause of action on 30.03.2017, which is served on 31.03.2017 and therefore, the present petition is filed. 6. Learned Senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta has contended that in view of the above stated facts and circumstances, it is improper to on the part of the respondent-Corporation, who is considered as a State Authority and this action of issuance of notice is nothing but is violation of the order passed by this Court in first round i.e. 03.01.2017. He has further submitted that these notices issued within 4 to 5 days, the petition is disposed of by this Hon’ble Court as earlier notices were withdrawn by the Corporation and more, particularly, the notices are served on Friday Night and action is of demolition is taken on Saturday morning, which shows ill intention and high handedness of the Officers of the Corporation and there is arbitrariness and case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Hon’ble Court. 7. He has further submitted that the show cause notice issued is also bad in law in view of the judgment Olga Tellis and Others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, 1986 AIR 180 and in view of the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. He has further submitted that time, which is selected by the Corporation and for serving all notices and taking action of demolition is with clear view to deprive the right of the citizen to approach the remedy available under the law. This action of the Corporation is of taking serious note. 9. 8. He has further submitted that time, which is selected by the Corporation and for serving all notices and taking action of demolition is with clear view to deprive the right of the citizen to approach the remedy available under the law. This action of the Corporation is of taking serious note. 9. He has further submitted that even in the affidavit filed by the Corporation, the Corporation is saying that now there is a demolition of the land in question, as per the say of the Corporation is occupied by the present petitioners in illegal manner as encroacher of the land without having any valid and legal title even then some procedure of law is required to be followed by giving reasonable opportunity to the citizens of the country. More particularly in view of the provisions of the Constitution of India and therefore, he has submitted that as per the say of the Corporation, that rehabilitation can be provided to the present petitioners and Corporation cannot ask for any amount to be paid by the present petitioners as petitioners are deprived of their residential property in such a brutal manner, they are not permitted to remove their belongings and the petitioners have to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing Civil Application during the pendency of Special Civil Application and therefore, he prays that considering the high handed conduct of the Officers of the respondent-Corporation and considering the same judgments on the point of law, the amount of compensation of at least one lakh or more should be provided to the present petitioners, If the main prayer cannot be granted as prayed for in the present petition. 10. The Hon’ble Apex in the judgment rendered in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others vs. M/s Sunbeam High Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 7627 of 2019, Paras 15, 16 and 17 of that judgment are relevant for the purpose of present matter when the structure is illegal structure even though it has been demolished illegally, such structure should not be permitted to come up again and if the Municipal Corporation violates the procedure while demolishing the building, but the structure is totally illegal, some compensation can be awarded and in cases where such compensation is awarded, the same should be invariably is recovered from the Officers who acted in violation of the matter. He has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in identical situated matter has taken strong view by considering that he has relied upon the judgment reported in case of Jaiprakash Vishwanath Jaiswal vs. Municipal Corporation of Cities of Kalyan and Dombivali and Others, 2018 (6) Mh. L.J. 459 and more particularly relied upon Paras 26 and 27 and submitted even we let go of the observations, even after openly and knowingly contrary in the law common litigant will be emboldened and admitted to follow them in the wrongly and illegal act. Therefore, he prays that some strong action is required to be taken, pursuant to such illegal demolition as alleged by the present petitioners and pass appropriate order of compensation also, If the prayer, which is sought for permitting the petitioners to stay on the same part and parcel of land granted by this Court. 11. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavaty appearing for the Corporation has drawn the attention of this Court that towards various communication whereby he has submitted that the Corporation has time and again given the notice to the present petitioners, who are admittedly encroachers of the property in question. He has further submitted that the Government has already carried out proceedings against the present petitioners under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, repeatedly from more than 60 years back now the property in questing is coming within the part and parcel limit of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. It is statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action pursuant to the such government lands and properties. 12. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. It is statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action pursuant to the such government lands and properties. 12. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavaty that every action is taken after following due procedure and he has pointed out that the order passed by the authority dated 03.02.2017, which is speaking order whereby on perusal of the documents, the authorities have asked all the concerned persons, who are occupying the land to produce the necessary documents of the title and interest in the land in question, out of 19 persons, six persons could not produce any documents and the age concession are found illegal and other 13 persons who have not concerned with the law that particular land who have produced some documents pertains to that and against those 13 persons the Corporation has found there is no illegality on their part and therefore, the Corporation has withdrawn the notices against illegality committed by those persons. Simultaneously the Corporation has also found that remaining six persons who are the present petitioners have committed illegality and their constructions are totally illegal and even then after the Corporation has shown willingness to allot some premises in B.S.U.P. and Slum Free City Scheme towards the alternative arrangement as per prevailing policy of the State Government and initially the petitioners also visited that particular premises with the Officers of the Corporation and had also shown willingness to accept the proposal of the Corporation, but thereafter they have withdrawn their willingness and therefore, the Corporation has no other option but pass order by asking those six persons who are the present petitioner to remove the constructions over the City Survey No. 2212 admeasuring 1350 sq. meteres within 7 days from receipt of notice. 13. He has further submitted that the petitioners are coming before this Court on erroneous foundations that one the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing City Survey No. 2211 situated in the City of Vadodara and to the petitioners have put up lawful constructions over the said plot. He has further submitted that the petitioners had sought to be removed arbitrary and unlawfully by the Corporation. He has further submitted that the land bearing City Survey No. 2212 belongs to the Government as it is reflected in the Revenue Record since the year 1974 and now it is handed over to the Corporation. He has further submitted that the petitioners had sought to be removed arbitrary and unlawfully by the Corporation. He has further submitted that the land bearing City Survey No. 2212 belongs to the Government as it is reflected in the Revenue Record since the year 1974 and now it is handed over to the Corporation. He has submitted that the constructions made by the petitioners over the land is illegal being impermissible in the law and the constructions is also unauthorized being made without obtaining development permission from the Corporation. He has further submitted that each of the petitioners have been offered alternative accommodation by the corporation, even though they are encroachers over the public land only on account of the long possession, the action of the Corporation in removing the encroachment and demolishing the illegal constructions standing over the public land is just and proper. 14. He has further submitted that even today none of the petitioners has been able to produce any material even before this Court to show that each or any one of them is owner of the land, towards no documents to show title or ownership over the land. He has submitted the construction has been made by each of them over the land without any obtaining permission and they have failed to produce any permission on the record before even this Court. Therefore, he has submitted that the Corporation is duty bound and as also under the legal obligation to find out encroachment and remove them in accordance with law and corporation is towards discharge of such legal obligation and such action of corporation cannot be termed as arbitrary, illegal or without any authority of law. He has further submitted that even after demolition of the structure, it is found that some of the persons are tried to re-enter into the remaining premises and therefore, also threatened the Officers of the Corporation and also tried to attack the Officers of the Corporation and therefore, the Corporation has to made criminal complaint against such person also. He has further submitted that even then it is found that the possession of the petitioners from the beginning and till its continuance to remain illegal and the long passage of time will not legitimate their possession. He has further submitted that even then it is found that the possession of the petitioners from the beginning and till its continuance to remain illegal and the long passage of time will not legitimate their possession. He has further submitted that beyond at the most long possession of such public property of welfare and sympathetic consideration may require the rehabilitation and therefore, he submitted that beyond his settlement the persons have not right in law and in the present case each of the petitioners have been offered alternative accommodation by the Corporation and therefore, he submitted that the action of the Corporation by no stretch of imagination to be considered to harsh, much less, arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal or not in connivance with law and therefore, he submitted that the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is prerogative writ and is not issued on mere asking on bald allegation of illegal action by the authority that to at the instance of the present person, who has himself resorted to illegality or has sent no record for the law and undisputedly the present petitioners are not lawful owner of the land and possession over the public land is illegal without any authority of law. Such persons cannot raises any complaint about action of the corporation, which aims to eradicate illegality committed by them. So long as the action of the authority broadly confirms. He prays to dismiss the present petition as no case is made out by the present petitioner to interfere with the action and no prayer can be granted. He however, reiterated that at the best the rehabilitation can be provided to the present petitioners if they are will to take that opportunity. 15. Considering the rival submissions made at bar and after considering the averments made in the memo of petition and documents annexed with the petition also considering the affidavit-in-reply filed by the corporation and documents annexed with the reply, I am of the view that the present petition filed by the present petitioners is not required to be considered on the ground that admittedly the present petitioners are not lawful owner of the land in question. More particularly, the Government authorities have issued various notices under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. More particularly, the Government authorities have issued various notices under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Though it was not proceeded further, but no documents to establish the title over the land and on the merely basis of the long possession, they cannot claim title in the property. 16. It is also found that no document is produced by the petitioners on record of the present petition to show that the construction put up on the said land is also after taking permission from the any of the competent authority and therefore, even constructions put up by the present petitioners are also apparently found not in accordance with law and can be termed as illegal construction. 17. More particularly the petitioners have time and again approached this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court on earlier occasion has given some opportunity to represent their case and accordingly they would have represented the case even the Corporation has given some opportunity to select alternative place of that rehabilitation but they have not opted for that and they have denied that the suggestions from the corporation and they have insisted that they will still remain in possession of the land, which is subject matter of the present petition. Now the said land is vested within the jurisdiction of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and it is statutory as well as legal duty of the corporation to protect the properties. More particularly government properties and if required to take appropriate action to evict the encroacher from the property. It is also reveals from the record that the Corporation has issued notices for vacation of the premises and on earlier occasion also the Corporation has issued notices which were challenged before the authority. This time the Corporation has issued notice and after giving an opportunity to vacate the premises on the next day the Corporation has visited the premises and has demolished the premises as required under the law. There is no mandatory requirement for the corporation to give specific time period after issuance of notice. This time the Corporation has issued notice and after giving an opportunity to vacate the premises on the next day the Corporation has visited the premises and has demolished the premises as required under the law. There is no mandatory requirement for the corporation to give specific time period after issuance of notice. It is true that the Corporation has acted with some haste in demolition of the such construction but looking to the previous experience where the every action of the Corporation is challenged by the petitioners by taking every recourse under the law and when the Corporation has followed necessary procedure by giving sufficient opportunity under the law to the present petitioners. Now the petitioners, who are not having any legal on valid title over the land in question nor having any valid permission of construction under the law, cannot now challenge the action of the Corporation by describing such action is illegal. 18. Now considering the submission of senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta regarding some action is required to be taken against the Officer of the Corporation or by granting some compensation to the petitioners by referring the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Bombay High Court. It is in the same judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear cut direction that if the structure is illegal and the person is occupying such premises without any valid or legal title and the construction has put up without any proper authority under the law then such construction is required to be demolished and person is required to be evicted and therefore, there is no question and in view of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others, (2021) 10 SCC 1 . 19. Now it is necessary that the Courts have to take serious view about the illegal constructions and legal occupation of the land in question. I find there is no merit in the present petition. I find there is no justifiable cause for calling any interference with the action taken by the present respondent-Corporation. I find there is no illegality, arbitrariness or impropriety found in the action taken by the Corporation. I find there is no merit in the present petition. I find there is no justifiable cause for calling any interference with the action taken by the present respondent-Corporation. I find there is no illegality, arbitrariness or impropriety found in the action taken by the Corporation. However, it is always better for the Officers of the Corporation to observe some restraint by taking some such harsh action but that does not give any reasons to interfere in the actions taken by the Corporation for the larger public interest. It is not a case where the official or public servant is knowingly contravening the law and adopted the proceedings in illegal manner, but in the present case, I found that there is no illegality or arbitrariness is found in the action of the Officers of the Corporation and therefore, I find there is no reason to interfere with the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation for demolishing the premises of the petitioners and as the petitioners have no legal and valid title in their favour, they cannot claim any equitable right to get the benefit to stay on the same land from where the entire construction is removed by the Corporation as same land is otherwise admittedly a Government Land from the Revenue Record also it is allotted to the PWD, if petitioners want to opt for any alternative relief, i.e. by way of rehabilitation, which is already offered by the Corporation and petitioners can opt for that relief, if they want to avail within 4 weeks from the date of the order otherwise there is no substance on merits found in the present petition therefore no relief can be granted as prayed in the present petition and there is no justifiable cause is made out exercise powers under the equitable as well as discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 20. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. 21. Civil Applications, if any, pending before this Court are also disposed of accordingly.