AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Tuesday refused to stay the demolition drive carried out by the authorities near Chandola Lake, from where the city police rounded up more than 900 persons, suspecting them to be illegal migrants from Bangladesh three days ago. Eighteen residents of the Siyasatnagar locality at Chandola filed a petition on Monday evening and sought urgent intervention by the HC by staying the demolition, which already began. Justice Mauna Bhatt granted them an urgent hearing on Tuesday when the high court was functioning on account of a public holiday.
Their counsel, Anand Yagnik, submitted that the petitioners are Indian citizens and lived in this area for nearly 50 years, and they have ample documents to establish their citizenship. The demolition process was opposed on the ground that the residents were not issued any eviction notice as mandated by the Supreme Court order. It was contended that the petitioners are not the owners of the land, but there is also no demarcation and delimitation map under the CRZ notification to indicate that they are occupying the waterbody.
Moreover, it was contended that the residents be given the benefit of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of the State of Gujarat 2010, as amended in 2013, and they should not be evicted without providing alternative accommodation. It was also contended that the demolition drive was undertaken on the pretext of taking action against illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, but such an action is illegal until a competent authority decides about the citizenship of the suspected people.
The state govt opposed the plea by arguing that the land occupied is a notified waterbody, and this kind of unauthorised occupation and construction does not warrant any prior eviction notice. Moreover, it argued that the Chandola locality, according to an intelligence report, is a threat to the security of the state. After hearing the arguments, Justice Mauna Bhatt refused to stay the demolition on the basis of the state govt’s contention that the petitioners reside on the notified land. According to an SC judgement, long-standing occupation does not give any right to the illegal encroacher, Advocate Yagnik said.
The HC has kept the petition pending, and further hearing will take place in June.
