Recently, the Gujarat High Court refused to interfere with an eviction notice issued for removal of an encroachment on a public footpath, reiterating that long possession or payment of municipal taxes does not confer ownership rights, especially when public land is involved.
The case arose from a Special Civil Application filed by an individual claiming rights over a property situated in Krushnanagar, Naroda, Ahmedabad, on the basis of a Power of Attorney. The Petition challenged a notice directing removal of an alleged encroachment on a public footpath within fifteen days. The petitioner argued that she was in lawful possession for several years, regularly paid taxes and utility bills, and that the eviction notice was issued without following due procedure under the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961, allegedly violating principles of natural justice .
It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Power of Attorney from the original allottee effectively made her the owner of the premises, and therefore entitled her to carry out the construction. It was also urged that since a reply to the notice had already been submitted, coercive action should be restrained.
Opposing the plea, the Gujarat Housing Board and the Corporation argued that the Petitioner had no locus to maintain the petition as the notice was not even issued in her name and her name appeared to have been handwritten subsequently. The Respondents further submitted that the Power of Attorney relied upon was not executed by the original allottee but by a third party, and that photographs clearly showed encroachment on a public footpath, which is impermissible under law .
After considering the submissions, the High Court observed that mere long possession does not create ownership rights and that questions of title cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court also accepted the contention that the eviction notice was not issued to the petitioner and noted that encroachment on a public footpath cannot be legitimised on any ground.
Holding that there was no illegality in the eviction notice, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the direction to remove the encroachment from the public footpath .
Case Title: Ranjana Mulchandbhai Shitlani Vs Gujarat Housing Board & Ors
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 16501 Of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Mauna M. Bhatt
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Amit M Lashwani, Adv. Anmol D Ganwani
Counsel for the Respondent: Government Pleader G H Virk, Adv. S. H. Virk, Adv. Jagrat Shah, Adv. Rituraj M Meena
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
