NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/930/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 930 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20341 of 2019
=============================================
PUNJIBEN VITHALBHAI VAGHARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. JAINISH P SHAH(7033) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P.
MAYEE
Date : 29/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The instant appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.10.2022 whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for allotment of an alternative accommodation in the proceeding for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers uprooted in the execution of the project named Sabarmati Riverfront Development Project, had been rejected. The judgment Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:50:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/930/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023 undefined impugned categorically records that the Corporation has taken a decision in the year 2015 that since no one from the list of untraceable persons remained present before the Corporation for allotment of alternative accommodation, the project was declared closed and the remaining units were allotted to other persons.
2. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the writ petitioner / appellant herein who claims to be the noticee in the rehabilitation process, did not come forward to approach the competent authority to take possession of the alternative site offered by the Corporation for a period of 8 years. After completion of the project, at this stage, i.e. after a period of more than 8 years, the petitioner is claiming that she could not be available at the time of physical survey of the premises due to illness of her husband and as such she could not be allotted the alternative accommodation.
3. There is no dispute about the fact that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the list of displaced Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:50:29 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/930/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023 undefined persons who were having their hutment in the area covered by Sabarmati Riverfront Development Project. The name of the writ petitioner is also entered in the list of unidentified persons, which is appended with the writ petition.
4. However, the fact remains that the project itself has been completed in the year 2015 and as per the claim of the Corporation, there is no accommodation available, inasmuch as, the remaining units have been allotted to other persons. After closure of the project, we do not find it a fit case for interference. It may be noted that the allotment of alternative accommodation was completed by issuance of public notice at the end of the Corporation and no infirmity could be pointed out in the process.
5. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the challenge. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) Bharat Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:50:29 IST 2023