Gujarat High Court
Pathan vs State on 9 September, 2011
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6280/2005 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6280 of 2005
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5864 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6280 of 2005
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 13334 of 2009
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6280 of 2005
=========================================================
PATHAN
MOHMADKHAN ALIYARKHAN & 9 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
GIRISH
PATEL ASSOC for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 10.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR KAMAL
TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR ABHISHEK MEHTA for M/S TRIVEDI &
GUPTA for Respondent(s) : 3 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 09/09/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) An affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitting the status report in compliance with the directions of this Court dated 8.8.2011.
2. Learned Advocate General, on behalf of the Corporation, informed that the Corporation has handed over a list of 1104 PAFs to the petitioners' advocate on 11.8.2011. As against this, the petitioners, till date, have not submitted any list or brought to the notice of the authorities of the Corporation any list of hutment dwellers who have been traced from out of the aforesaid list of 1104 PAFs who were not traceable. The Corporation through its own efforts was able to trace out 240 PAFs from the said list of 1104 PAFs for whom the procedure for allotment is under consideration. With regard to remaining 864 PAFs, a public notice has been issued cancelling their allotment. The list was also earlier put on the website of the Corporation and respective places of project affected area. No other list has been provided to the Corporation.
3. With regard to list of 4319 PAFs, scrutiny was undertaken and 3539 PAFs were identified. 174 PAFs were deleted due to dupliction and procedure for identification of status of 606 PAFs was in progress. The final figures emerge as follows :-
(i) 4015 PAFs have been allotted resettlement units through computerized draw on 24.8.2011;
(ii) 304 names have been deleted due to duplicate entires;
4. As far as shifting of the aforesaid PAFs is concerned, it is submitted that 2784 units were ready for allotment. Subsequently, another 2016 units have been completed and are ready for allotment i.e. total 4319 units are ready. Against the same, 4015 PAFs will be shifted to their respective dwelling units after completion of the allotment procedure.
5. With regard to certain persons who claimed that their names were not shown in either of the list prepared by the Corporation or by the petitioners, who were directed to approach Justice D.P. Buch Committee, it is stated that in absence of any order by the Court for producing any list, such list has not been accepted.
6. Learned Advocate General submits that if Hon'ble Justice D.P. Buch Committee recommends any inclusion of some more names on its own volition, the Corporation is ready to accommodate them and allot them certain units. He submits that it should not exceed more than 883 persons as extra 883 units are available, for the present, for allotment.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that pursuant to the earlier observations some other persons who alleged that their names were not included in the earlier list, the petitioner has prepared a separate list of 883 persons with regard to whom the Corporation has agreed to allot if they are properly identified by Hon'ble Justice D.P. Buch Committee. It is informed that another list of around 550 has been submitted by another group, but somebody will have to verify whether they were actually residing in the slum in question. It is informed that all of them had applied earlier before Hon'ble Justice D.P. Buch Committee.
8. Some grievance has been made with regard to location of allocation to one or other PAFs family.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that every time number of persons cannot be added in the list for the purpose of rehabilitation. Originally, the Corporation identified 5964 PAFs. The petitioners allege that about 4390 PAFs were left out. With regard to aforesaid 10354 PAFs, direction has already been issued for their rehabilitation within the time stipulated by the Court with the consent of the Corporation. Subsequently, it was alleged that certain more persons have been left out. Now the petitioners state that 883 PAFs have been left out. On the other hand, another group states that another 550 PAFs have been left out. Thereby, total 1433 PAFs have been left out.
10. In this context, we may only mention that we are not inclined to issue any direction for rehabilitation of such persons without proper verification and identification. As suggested by the learned counsel for the Corporation, we allow the petitioners to submit the list of 883 persons before Justice D.P. Buch Committee. The other list of 550 persons be also submitted before Justice D.P. Buch Committee. Both the lists should be submitted within a week. On receipt of the aforesaid lists, Justice D.P. Buch Committee may find out from the record whether any one or other out of the aforesaid list has earlier applied for rehabilitation. The persons, out of those two lists, whoever has applied for their rehabilitation before Justice D.P. Buch Committee, their names be segregated and the list be prepared by the said Committee, which list be forwarded to the Corporation. In such case, the Corporation, after proper verification and identification of such persons, out of the list submitted by Justice D.P. Buch Committee, will allot the units in the last phase by 15th December 2011. It is made clear that no further list will be entertained either by Justice D.P. Buch Committee or by this Court.
11. In the meantime, to ensure that Sabarmati riverfront project starts fullfledged, for which in fact all these rehabilitation measures have been taken, we direct that all the persons who have been allocated the units, should occupy their respective units by 31st October 2011. Those who are still claiming allotment, with regard to such person, the matter may be verified by Justice D.P. Buch Committee. They will shift to other place. If needed, they may request the Corporation to point out temporary place where they may continue till identification is completed by Justice D.P. Buch Committee. In any case, total Sabarmati riverfront area should be vacated by 8th November 2011.
12. So far as allocation of units at one or other location is concerned, we are not inclined to issue any direction to the Corporation. It will be open to one or the other allottee to exchange the units from one place to another place or one block to another block, after prior permission of the Corporation. If any such application is filed, with consent of another party for exchange, the Corporation will look into it sympathetically and my reallocate such units on such exchange.
13. It is reported that some persons by fraudulent method got their names included in the list. Though they were not eligible for allotment of units, they obtained allotment pursuant to order passed in this public interest litigaion. In this regard, we may observe that if any such person, who was not the PAFs residing in the Sabarmati riverfront area by the date the Court passed order of rehabilitation i.e. 5.7.2011, such person should be evicted forthwith giving reference of this Court's order. If they are evicted, they may move before this Court in this public interest litigation to show that they have been wrongly evicted, but no Civil Court will entertain their application for passing interim order of stay and thereby they cannot frustrate the order passed by this Court. The Corporation may get it verified either through Justice D.P. Buch Committee or through any independent investigating agency including C.I.D. (Crime) of the State.
14. A progress report by submitted before this Court by the next date.
15. As this order could be passed by the Court because of cooperation of the officers of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, we direct the persons, whoever has lodged complaint against any of the officers of the Corporation with regard to eviction or rehabilitation, to withdraw such complaint. If such complaint is not withdrawn, it will be open to the officers to bring this order to the notice of the competent Court to ensure that no further action is taken pursuant to such complaint.
16. Post the matter on 11th November 2011.
17. In view of the aforesaid, no separate order is required to be passed in the civil applications. Both the civil applications stand disposed of.
(S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.) (J.B. PARDIWALA, J.) zgs/-
Top