Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 The appellants are seeking alternate accommodation on the basis of the GR dated 3.7.2003 (Page­501) which had been introduced for the benefit of those hutment dwellers who were residing on government lands in Gandhinagar as on 30.11.1999. There are certain criteria laid down in the said notification. The appellants fulfill all the criteria except two criteria i.e (17 The appellants were not included in the videography done on 30.11.1999 and (ii) they do not possess the ID card issued by the Collector (which was issued on the basis of the videography).

3 The grievance of the appellants , right from the start has been that the authorities had not completed the survey on 30.11.1999. The appellants through various correspondences on various occasions have pointed out to the State Government that the videography of all the hutment dwellers was not completed on 30.11.1999 and time and again the State Government was requested to complete the videography which was carried out only on one day and it was physically impossible to carry out videography of each and every hutment in a single day (Page 542).

5 The State Government instead of considering individually the representations of the Petitioners and the accompanied proofs of residences have been issuing eviction notices on various occasions. The Appellants' last made representations were rejected vide communication dated 25.6.2020 (Page 517) whereby the appellants were informed that as they were not included in the videography done on 30.11.1999 and as they have not produced ID Proof issued by the Collector they were not in compliance of the Circular dated 3.7.2003. All the appellants were issued identical 'ejection letters. The appellants have challenged the communication dated 25.6.2020 by way of an amendment by insertion of a new prayer clause 8 BB. In the draft amendment the appellants had specifically averred once again that the authorities have visited the hutments only for a day for the survey and the videography of all the hutments was not done and that the authorities had assured them that they would return to complete the survey, but they never came.

7 The appellants are complying with all the other criteria and have the requisite residence proofs. The nonperformance of the State Government in completing the videography is a criteria which only the State Government can perform and the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefit of the circular of 3.7.2020 on the ground of non­performance of a condition by the Government.

8 The submission regarding videography is not an afterthought by the appellants. The direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court on various dates and on petitions substantiates the submission of appellant that they have been consistently re­iterating that the videography was not completed on 30. 1 1. 1999. In spite of above facts and submissions the Learned Single Judge has erroneously observed that there is abuse of process of law by the petitioners by filing the petition. The learned Single judge has also erred in concluding that the petitioners have made oral submissions Without written averments that all the appellants' applications have been rejected on the same ground that the videography was not carried out.