Public Interest Has Precedence Over Private Interest: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Stall Redevelopment Of Public Housing Blocks

The Bench held this in a Writ Application challenging the work of 'Redevelopment' of 'Soneriya Block' situated in Ahmedabad on the ground that Respondent No. 2 had not provided detailed information and adequate audience to the Writ-Applicants, owners of respective units.

The Applicants further averred that the redevelopment process was without the due process of law as envisaged in Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme 2016 ('Scheme'). Therefore, they sought that the process be declared illegal, the redevelopment process be scrutinised basis detailed records and that the Respondents maintain status quo regarding the redevelopment process.

In 2021, the Applicants were served with a notice under Section 268 of the BPMC Act ('Act') wherein they were informed that Respondent No. 2 would undertake a redevelopment project as per orders of Respondent No. 3. The primary grievance of the Applicants was that they were not made part of the entire process and the Respondent No.2 being a public agency withheld information about the project by refusing to address their representation.

The Respondent further initiated the work of demolition and demolished around 5 blocks. A further averment was that the size of the units was not as per the 2016 Scheme, there were irregularities in the implementation of the Project and that there was a failure to quantify the amount of maintenance to be borne by the Applicants.

Per contra, the Respondents submitted that Soneriya had old structures which were built 50 years ago. They had undergone immense wear and tear and therefore deserved redevelopment. The Respondent claimed that the Block fit the definition of 'dilapidated condition' prescribed in the Scheme Guidelines of 2016 and that the Scheme stipulated that public housing schemes older than 20 years or in dilapidated condition were eligible for redevelopment. Significantly, the agency had gained the consent of more than 90% members prior to the filing of the Writ Application. The Respondent assured that accommodation and allowance was being provided to all beneficiaries.

Judgement

A significant observation of the Bench was that Respondent No. 3 had put up hoardings in conspicuous place in vernacular language making the occupants aware of the redevelopment. Further around 93% of occupants had given their consent for development and it was only due to the Applicants that the work was stalled. The Bench noted that the Applicants were not opposing the scheme but were seeking that the work be in accordance with the Scheme. Justice Nanavati remarked:

"The object is in the interest of the public at large and the said object cannot be defeated at the behest of few persons. While the respondent no.2 has floated the scheme, the respondent no.3 is given the task to give the effect to the said scheme. The time frame in which the project could have been completed is also delayed, at the behest of few persons. It cannot be said that the aforesaid scheme is in any way discriminatory. No fundamental or legal rights of the writ-applicants can be have to have been infringed by any action on the part of the respondent authorities."

Affirming that public interest will always have precedence over private interest, the Court refused to interfere with the project and directed that the Respondents undertake the project in accordance with the 2016 Scheme and assure that the beneficiaries do not undergo any inconvenience.

Case Title: DHARMENDRA RAVIPRATAP RAJAK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 48

Case No.: C/SCA/16256/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order