JUDGMENT : Alpesh Y. Kogje, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking directions to hold and declare the decision to beautify the river bank of Kansara River in Bhavnagar City, as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and declare the same as void ab initio, on the ground that the hutment dwellers be provided with alternative accommodation. The petitioners also seek issuance of writ to quash and set aside an order dated 31.12.2021, directing the petitioners to remove their constructions within time bound period. 2. The petitioners also pray for a direction to the respondents to frame a policy to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners and similarly situated hutment dwellers numbering 1052 inhabiting on the river bank of Kansara River of Bhavnagar City and restrain the respondents from removing the construction/hutment of the petitioners and similarity situated persons. 3. The petition was mentioned urgently at 11.00 a.m. on 04.01.2022 and permission was granted on the same day to be moved at 02.30 p.m. Further, on account of some office objections, the matter could not be placed and once-again the matter was mentioned on same day in second half calling upon the Court to once-again take up the matter urgently, as the petitioners anticipated demolition of their houses. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati, who usually appears for the respondent-Corporation was in the Court and was informed about the matter and to take instructions. Accordingly, when the matter came up on board on 06.01.2022, the learned advocate Mr. Nanavati for the respondent-Corporation has placed on record the photographs and the notices as well as an unsworned copy of the affidavit-in-reply with an advance copy to the petitioners' advocate on record and submitted to the Court that the so called hutments were already cleared and the activity has been going since some time, but on account of pendency of the present petition, the residential premises of the petitioners have not been touched, which is evident from the photographs. 5. Learned Arguing Counsel for the Petitioners did not appear on 06.01.2022 and hence, the matter was placed on the next date i.e. 07.01.2022 with the permission to mention the matter at 11.00 a.m., as the issue requires urgent attention. 6. At 11.00 a.m., the matter was mentioned by Mr. 5. Learned Arguing Counsel for the Petitioners did not appear on 06.01.2022 and hence, the matter was placed on the next date i.e. 07.01.2022 with the permission to mention the matter at 11.00 a.m., as the issue requires urgent attention. 6. At 11.00 a.m., the matter was mentioned by Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent-Corporation, however, none had remained present on behalf of the petitioners and hence, the learned advocate for the respondent-Corporation while placing the sworned copy of the affidavit on record, tried to draw attention of this Court to the factual situation prevailing. However, in absence of the learned advocate for the petitioners, the Court thought it fit to place the matter in the second half and accordingly, again, the matter was taken up at 2.30 p.m. Even then the learned arguing counsel for the petitioners was not present and a feeble attempt was made by the learned advocate on record and again the matter was kept back so as to enable the arguing learned counsel for the petitioners to make his submissions. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up for hearing. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are threatened to be removed by demolishing the premises held and possessed by the petitioners and in fact, 18 to 19 hutment premises have already been demolished by the respondent-Corporation on 03.01.2022 and the petitioners also apprehend that their premises will be demolished without there being any provision for alternative accommodation to the petitioners. 8. It is the case of the petitioners that the ancestors of the petitioners have started occupying small pieces of land on the bank of river Kansara since early 1980 and in fact, some of the persons had started residing since 1970 onwards. 9. It is submitted that the pieces of land which were occupied by the ancestors of the petitioners, as the land were open pieces of land and the ancestors of the petitioners had no shelter over their head. Like the petitioners, several other persons, who are the citizens, have identically put up their hutments. 10. It is submitted that considering the existence of last settlement, the Standing Committee of Municipal Corporation has passed Resolution No. 179 on 29.08.1995 and created a sub-committee to decide the issues relating to inhabitation of large number of poor people in that area. Like the petitioners, several other persons, who are the citizens, have identically put up their hutments. 10. It is submitted that considering the existence of last settlement, the Standing Committee of Municipal Corporation has passed Resolution No. 179 on 29.08.1995 and created a sub-committee to decide the issues relating to inhabitation of large number of poor people in that area. Thereafter, the Standing Committee passed a Resolution No. 196 to resolve that a licensee should be CHARGED Licensee of Rs. 10 will be received from the hutment dwellers for giving water/sewerage and domestic electric connection. This facility was extended to the hutment dwellers, who had permitted to occupy area of 50 sq. yds only. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in the Year-1991, the Executive Committee of the Corporation decided to extent the support to the hutment dwellers by giving monetary benefits of Rs. 4000/-, where Rs. 1,000/- was subsidy and Rs. 3,000/- was by way of loan. 12. Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that under the garb of beautification of Bhavnagar City, the name of rejuvenation of Kansara river, the hutment located in the area are sought to be removed. Learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that, as the project undertaken by the respondent-Corporation is similar to the project of Sabarmati River Front undertaken by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the respondent-Corporation is expected to adopt the similar stand, as the Sabarmati Riverfront Project by providing alternative accommodation to the petitioners. 13. Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the movement for the petitioners was leaded by one Mr. Arun Mehta, Local Political and Member of CPI, running a unregistered association in the name of Bhavnagar Zupda Sangh (Lal Vavta), who had applied for under RTI to provide information regarding alternative provided for the hutment dwellers. 14. In response to the RTI in September-2021, the Corporation has informed that there is nothing provided for in the project regarding alternative accommodation for alleged slum existing on the bank of river Kansara. 15. It is submitted that the public spirited person Mr. Arun Mehta had made a representation on 29.12.2021 by drawing parallel with Sabarmati Riverfront Project and citing the decision of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 6280 of 2005 regarding providing of alternative accommodation before demolition commences. 16. 15. It is submitted that the public spirited person Mr. Arun Mehta had made a representation on 29.12.2021 by drawing parallel with Sabarmati Riverfront Project and citing the decision of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 6280 of 2005 regarding providing of alternative accommodation before demolition commences. 16. It is submitted that such representation was not taken into consideration at all, and therefore, the rights of the petitioners to the shelter which is recognized as a Human Right in the decision of the Apex Court in case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India reported in 2019 1 SCC 1 . 17. In the midst of the hearing, the learned advocate for the petitioners has placed on record a final detailed project report dated July-2019 of River rejuvenation Project of Kansara River at Bhavnagar City and a bunch of documents which the petitioners claim to be the documents like Municipal Tax Bills, Electricity Bills, identity cards, BPL Cards etc. which are available with the petitioners and are that of other occupants of SO CALLED hutments in the area. 18. Learned advocate for the petitioners has also relied upon the celebrated decision in the case of Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation reported in 1985 3 SCC 545 stating that before removing the petitioners from the place an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioners. 19. As against this, the learned AGP and the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that the petition is not maintainable in its present form and is based on several factual issues, which are highly disputed. To ascertain such facts, leading of evidence would be necessary, and therefore only, a section of the persons located on the river bank/bank of river Kansara and likely to be affected by the project have approached the Civil Court by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 1331 of 2021 and that Section of illegal occupants having failed to get any positive order in their favour another section has directly applied by way of present petition. 20. It is submitted that the petitioners are land encroachers not only on the government land, but also a water body, which is required to be maintained in the public interest and inconsonance with the directions issued by NGT. 21. 20. It is submitted that the petitioners are land encroachers not only on the government land, but also a water body, which is required to be maintained in the public interest and inconsonance with the directions issued by NGT. 21. It is the case of the respondent-Corporation that what is sought to be removed are the illegally constructed structures, which are of cement and concrete and causing load on the water body, as the same are existing in the area notified as water body. That the notices have been given to remove such unauthorized structures. 22. It is submitted that in exercise of powers under Section 260 (2) of the Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act, the notices have been issued, and therefore, the procedure, as is contemplated under the relevant provisions, has been complied with by the respondent-Corporation. 23. It is incorrect to say that the respondent-Corporation has taken the action overnight and has taken the petitioners by surprise the issue with regard to rejuvenation of river Kansara was in public domain since 2019 and the occupants of the areas covered under the project were very much aware. This aspect is evident even while the petition was filed before this Court on account of no orders passed by the Civil Court where the civil proceedings were pending since November-2021. The demolition work was carried out and 99% of the illegal structures were already erased. It is at that stage the petitioners knowingly approached this Court by making a misleading statement on oath that only 18-19 hutments have been removed. 24. It is submitted that, as the petition was filed before this Court and this Court had issued notice, the illegal structures of four petitioners before this Court were not touched. The photographs are produced herewith to indicate that the illegal structure cannot be termed to be hutment dwelling of poor slum area, and therefore, as a part of strategy, to prevent the project in public interest being commenced, the Court is sought to be misled by projecting the petitioners to be helpless/poor/illiterate persons. 25. The attempt on the part of petitioners is to make inroad into the ongoing project by citing two or three petitioners, but thereafter go on to expand the scope of the petition, thereby, delaying the projects. 26. 25. The attempt on the part of petitioners is to make inroad into the ongoing project by citing two or three petitioners, but thereafter go on to expand the scope of the petition, thereby, delaying the projects. 26. It is submitted that an attempt made by the petitioners to compare the rejuvenation project with the Sabarmati Riverfront Project is also an attempt to mislead the Court without citing the correct facts. The purpose of the present rejuvenation project is in the interest of the environment and to overcome the damage i.e. already caused to the environment by putting up illegal structures on the land which is covered and notified as water body. It is lastly submitted that the question raised by the petitioners regarding location of the petitioners being not on land which is notified as water body, but is on the river bank is highly disputed and even if, the claim of the petitioners is that of the illegal structure being on water bank still it is unauthorized and directly affecting the environment and water body. 27. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it would be necessary to deal in brief the history of the water body. It appear that considering the water requirement for the City of Bhavnagar, the then Maharaja of State of Bhavnagar has constructed Gaurisankar Sarovar in the year 1872 and the said Gaurisankar Sarovar was expanded in the year 1941 under the supervision of international renowned engineer Sir M. Vishwashraiya, whereby capacity of the Gaurisankar Sarovar was extended and expanded. The said Gaurisankar Sarovar was notified by the Government of Gujarat in view of the final order and judgment rendered in case of Sailesh R Shah v. State of Gujarat by this Court. 27.1. Thus, after the said expansion of the Gaurisankar Sarovar only with a view to control over flow and to discard excess water waster weir was constructed with 18 gates which were connected to the naturally flowing Kansara Water Channel. 27.2. In furtherance of the above, it needs to be noted that the entire rain water was discharged through the said Kansara Water Channel. 27.2. In furtherance of the above, it needs to be noted that the entire rain water was discharged through the said Kansara Water Channel. It is significant to state that nearby area surrounding the said Kansara Water Channel because of unauthorized illegal construction and unauthorized habitation and due to which drainage water is also mixing with the rain water and which too will flow through said water channel and due to which so much dirt, mosquitoes and bad smell was generated and issue of chock up of channel were also arising and therefore, channel is required to be clean every now and then and therefore, the authority has press the Karsana Rejuvenation Project in to service and started implementing the same. 27.3. The Authority has placed and implemented the said Kansara Rejuvenation Project and therefore, the area in question is required by the Authority as well as Project Manager, Kansara Rejuvenation Project and therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Act, 1949, vide notice bearing no. 35 dated 09.08.2021 and vide notice bearing no. 775 dated 17.12.2021 came to be issued by the Authority to the writ petitioners. 28. It appears that the authority has initiated the process in the public interest and executed and implemented the detailed reasoned order dated 31.12.2021, passed against the writ-petitioners and similarly situated stakeholders by removing and demolishing the structures which are coming in way of Karsana Rejuvenation Project and almost 99% work of demolition was contemplated and over, whereas due to the pendency of the present proceedings pending before this Court qua (i) Ranubhai Tulshibhai Solanki; (ii) Arvindbhai Dhirubhai Rathod; (iii) Subhashbhai Laxmanbhai Kanani and (iv) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Baraiya are pending, the Authority has not touched the same. However, the structures of the premises occupied by the writ petitioners are not considered as "Zuppadpatti" the benefit of resolution bearing no. 196 dated 26.05.1986 cannot be affected or given and the structures put up and constructed by (i) Ranubhai Tulshibhai Solanki; (ii) Arvindbhai Dhirubhai Rathod; (iii) Subhashbhai Laxmanbhai Kanani and (iv) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Baraiya are without any authority or law much less without any Development Permission and Building Usage Permission. 29. 196 dated 26.05.1986 cannot be affected or given and the structures put up and constructed by (i) Ranubhai Tulshibhai Solanki; (ii) Arvindbhai Dhirubhai Rathod; (iii) Subhashbhai Laxmanbhai Kanani and (iv) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Baraiya are without any authority or law much less without any Development Permission and Building Usage Permission. 29. Highlights of Kansara Rejuvenation Project is narrated in the final report of the project which needs to be referred to emphasis upon the requirement and smooth progress of the project, which is inconsonance with the several directions issued by the National Green Tribunal as well as the Apex Court. Kansara River is basically a rain-fed river. Over period of time due to scare rain-fall, it remains dry in most of the seasons. Dry and abounded Kansara river bed attracts encroachments, sewage water from nearby residential areas, dumping of solid waste etc. In light of several orders by the NGT and the Apex Court in this regard, it is need of time to Rejuvante Kansara River. River Rejuvenation means to restore the river to a former state: This can be achieved by proper canalizing and maintaining bed level in such a way that there would not be any side/bed erosion. In Bhavnagar, river Kansara requires the rejuvenation due to following reasons. (1) Erosion takes place at various places due to more velocity during rainy season. (2) In the route of river there are many curves created by dumping and by encroachments and due to such reason flow does not pass smoothly. (3) Due to encroachments, river flow area decrease and chances of flooding are higher now. (4) Salinity ingression started. (5) Direct disposal of sewage is polluting the water body at a great level. Once the project will be over, city will get following advantages: (1) Elimination of Sewage disposal into river: At present many Mafat Nagars (encroachments) have come up in the river bed area and it is found that many locations direct sewage disposal occurs into the river and these things polluting the water body, soil and water quality. It also creates unhealthy environment in neighborhood area. In the proposed project, main trunk lines is proposed on both side or river and all the sewage will be intercepted into these lines and finally it will be disposed into the existing STP. It also creates unhealthy environment in neighborhood area. In the proposed project, main trunk lines is proposed on both side or river and all the sewage will be intercepted into these lines and finally it will be disposed into the existing STP. So, in future, there is no chance for direct sewage disposal into the river which will fulfill the NGT guidelines. (2) Control the salinity ingression and recharge the ground water table: At present, in monsoon only, river flows with clean water which is running into the Sea/Khadi Area. So now a day the ground water table of the city is going down very fast. It is noticed that salinity ingression is started at some area in downstream side. In such case, if clean water will be stored into the river by constructing the small water barrier structure i.e. checks dams etc, it is quite possible to increase the ground water table at the great extent. In the project, on both the sides of river, the CC lining is proposed, while bed area is proposed without any lining work: so recharge will be possible throughout the length of river at bed areas. Further, to control the velocity of flow, various drop structures are proposed (i.e. 12 numbers of drops in 8.2 km length or river). Check dams will be formed by increasing the height of wall of drops to store the water on U/S. in all seasons. In summer season, it is also planned to use treated water from STPs for filling the check dams to recharge the ground water table. Various floating sprinkler arrangement are proposed for aeration purpose. Nos. of recharge well proposed. Because of the above measures salinity ingression will be largely prevented near estuary. Besides because of availability of water, throughout the river bed, ground water re-charge will also take place. (3) Supplementary source for Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation: At present, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (BMC) is dependable mainly 3 sources i.e. (1) Shetrunjay Dam (2) Narmada Pipe Line & (3) Bor Talav Lake. If Kansara River will be canalized and various check dams will be provided at frequent intervals then it is highly possible to recharge the ground water table around the 8.2 km stretch. In such case, BMC may construct bore wells near the river and use the water as Supplementary source. If Kansara River will be canalized and various check dams will be provided at frequent intervals then it is highly possible to recharge the ground water table around the 8.2 km stretch. In such case, BMC may construct bore wells near the river and use the water as Supplementary source. Dependability upon 3 sources will be decreased and new supplementary source for BMC will be created. (4) To Stop Waste dumping (According to NGT guidelines): At present, river is not protected on both side and due to that, directs solid waste dumping occurs and finally it decrease the carrying capacity of river and polluting the water, soil and ground water at large scale. In the proposed project, "chain link fencing" is proposed on both side of river with 3 meter height to stop the direct solid waste dumping into the river which fulfills NGT guidelines. (5) To create hygienic environment: By executing this project ground water contamination will be reduce, flowing of fresh water will decrease chances of mosquitoes breeding and thereby hygienic and healthy environment will be created. 30. From the project report, the objective appears to be rejuvenating the river by eliminating the direct sewage disposal, controlling the salinity ingression and recharge the ground water table. The project will therefore work to provide various proposals to increase the ground water table and decrease the salinity ingression. To stop the direct disposal of the sewage into the water thereby make the river pollution free and to provide a better environmental condition for the eco system of the river to thrive which apparently has been already damaged to a great extent as it evident from the photographs which are now the part of the project. 31. The attempt on the part of equating the present project with the Sabarmati Riverfront Project is only for the purpose of getting the benefit of providing alternate facility to the hutment dwellers living on the bank of river Sabarmati since many years. 31. The attempt on the part of equating the present project with the Sabarmati Riverfront Project is only for the purpose of getting the benefit of providing alternate facility to the hutment dwellers living on the bank of river Sabarmati since many years. Firstly the triggering point of Special Civil Application No. 6280 of 2005 in the case of Sabarmati River Project is recorded in the order dated 05.07.2011, where on 06.05.2011, the large number of hutment dwellers on the bank of river Sabarmati approached the Court and informed that all of a sudden, when the Court is seized with their applications for allotment of plots/building in their favour, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has started the demolition the huts indiscriminately. Moreover, the affected persons before the Court were identified to be the poor hutment dwellers living on the bank of river Sabarmati since many years. 32. The petition is not mentioning anything with regard to the social status of the petitioners nor does it disclose anything for Court to presume the petitioners to be poor, helpless and slum dwellers. When the photographs, which are produced along with the affidavit-in-reply, the Court cannot presume that the illegal structure are belonging to the poor hutment dwellers occupying a slum area. 33. In the opinion of the Court, the petition is lacking in many aspects and does not disclose the all-round facts to put the case in correct perspective. Secondly, the matter is filed and mentioned for circulation immediately so that the Court does not get a chance to go through the pleadings in advance and all this is done by citing poverty, illiteracy, lack of knowledge and education of the petitioners. It is now in fashion to do so to invoke misplaced sympathy particularly referring to the present facts; the photographs of the house standing which is subject matter to the statutory notices are not hutments, slums type construction. The constructions are full-fledged and construction with masonry brickwork, concrete slabs and beams. An ordinary citizen, who wants put up construction as such nature will obviously need a prior permission to construct, to get the plans passed, inspection periodical at the site and ultimate building use permission. However, the petitioners claim to enjoy immediately to all these requirements and that too on the land not of their ownership, but of this water body. 34. However, the petitioners claim to enjoy immediately to all these requirements and that too on the land not of their ownership, but of this water body. 34. The Court is also of the opinion that in the manner in which the petitioners was moved as stated in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioners have attempted to create an artificial urgency by contending that overnight the entire settlement would be erased, but going by the common sense also, for carrying out any activity like demolition in such a vast area, such action cannot be completed overnight, and therefore, when it is stated on oath by the respondent-Corporation that the demolition work pursuant to the statutory notices had commenced and 99% of demolition work was completed has too is required to be accepted. Though it has been stated on record by the respondent-Corporation that due reference to the pendency of the present petition, the illegal structures of the petitioners have not been touched. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court with half backed facts deliberately or not are not an issue with this Court with this Court at this stage would like to go into. 35. Another reason why the Court is inclined to believe that the petitioners though were aware of the entire proceedings, have not taken any step is a fact that a Regular Civil Suit No. 1331 of 2021 was filed by persons identically situated as the petitioners before the 7th Additional Senior Court at Bhavnagar way back in the month of November, 2021 and the Court was pleased to issue notice and since then the suit was pending. A perusal of the prayer clause is very much identical to the relief(s) prayed for before this Court in the petition. Despite this, after the procedure of issuing of notice under Section 260(1) of the BPMC Act dated 17.12.2021 and the reply filed on 24.12.2021, the petitioners were very well aware about ongoing proceedings. Still they have chosen to approach this Court after the action of the Corporation was initiated. At Annexure-F, the notice produced by the petitioners addressed to one of the occupants of illegal structure and reference to which is also made by the petitioners in their pleadings in Paragraph No. 11 would indicate that in the month of August-2021, the action under the provisions of Section 260 of the BPMC Act was contemplated. At Annexure-F, the notice produced by the petitioners addressed to one of the occupants of illegal structure and reference to which is also made by the petitioners in their pleadings in Paragraph No. 11 would indicate that in the month of August-2021, the action under the provisions of Section 260 of the BPMC Act was contemplated. Still there was no movement on the part of the petitioners till the respondent-Corporation had acted in accordance with provisions of the BPMC Act. 36. The reliance placed upon by the learned advocate for the petitioners in case of M/s. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame and Ors, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 520 to substantiate his argument that a right to life would include not only the right to food and right to clothing, but also a right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. In the case cited above, the Court was dealing with the Scheme of the Act being Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 and examining the purpose of Sections 20 & 21 of the Act for allotment of dwelling units for the weaker sections on the lands exempted under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act and it is while considering this, the Apex Court has gone on to define the test or working guidelines for identifying the weaker section of the society on the basis of their income etc. 37. As stated herein above, the petitioners, in the opinion of the Court, have miserably failed to establish themselves to be poor and helpless hutment dwellers, which would invoke the sympathy of the Court. 38. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the process adopted by the respondent authorities under Section 260 of the BPMC Act. Also, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the ongoing project for rejuvenation of Karsana River on the ground raised in the present petition. However, at the same time, observes that keeping in view the predicament of the occupiers of so called settlement, the respondent-Corporation is expected to forward any benefit to which the petitioners would be entitled to under the Scheme which are operating and undertaken by the State Government for the benefit of class of citizens to which the petitioners claim to belong. 39. 39. Learned advocate prays for the stay of the present order to enable the petitioner to approach higher forum. Considering the nature of petition and what is brought on record the prayer for stay is not accepted. With aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed.