'Public Interest Will Always Have Precedence Over Private Interest': Gujarat High Court Rejects Plea Against Redevelopment Of Residential Units

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the redevelopment of residential units of Surya Apartments, Sola Road, in Ahmedabad under a scheme floated by the Gujarat Housing Board (GHB). A total of 14 residents of the premises had moved the high court against the redevelopment contending that the principles of natural justice, which is a prerequisite for any redevelopment scheme, was not followed in the entire process.

While dismissing the application, Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, observed,

“The public interest will always have precedence over a private interest of the parties, more particularly, when the said is in the interest of public at large and in the present case, at the behest of few persons (14 petitioners), the entire project cannot be put to a standstill. The redevelopment scheme is on- going since 2016 and 75% of the occupants have consented to the redevelopment process.”

Advocate Chirag Prajapati, representing the petitioners, had argued that the action of the respondent authority in the institution of the scheme, without there being any law providing the same, is de-hors the provisions of law and without jurisdiction, and therefore deserves to be set aside.

While contending that they have been deprived of their right to property by virtue of administrative decision, it was argued that they are the owners and occupiers of the premises in question and that the houses were sold to them under 132 MIG Scheme which was laid down and constructed by the GHB in 1986.

The court was further informed that they came into occupation of the premises on the execution of conveyance deeds in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 and GHB (Disposal of Property) Regulations, 1974. As per the said deeds, the leasehold rights have been transferred to the petitioners till 2075.

While contending that the provisions of the redevelopment scheme itself are arbitrary in nature and invest discriminatory powers in the competent authority, the petitioners submitted that the redevelopment scheme cannot override their leasehold rights and that the authorities failed to provide expert reports or clarify the proposed houses to be allotted to them. They also argued that the authority's requirement of 75% member consent, ignoring the rest of the 25%, is violative of the principles of natural justice.

It was also alleged that the authorities have not provided alternate accommodation or paid advance rent, as required by the amended Section 60(1)(2) of the Gujarat Housing Board Act.

While contending that the case has been filed in bad faith and would cause grave and irreparable prejudice to the Gujarat Housing Board and other beneficiaries of the redevelopment project, advocate G.H. Virk, the counsel appearing for the GHB argued that the case has been filed by a minority of 14 individuals out of a total of 132 beneficiaries. He emphasized that the majority of 90-91% of the beneficiaries have consented to the redevelopment, and therefore the redevelopment should not be stalled at the instance of the minority members.

It was submitted that the subject premises has been requested for redevelopment by the Association comprising all the members of the society. After necessary approvals, a successful bidder, Katira Construction Limited, was awarded the redevelopment project, and consent of 118 out of 132 beneficiaries was obtained, Virk said.

It was further submitted that the redevelopment is being carried out in accordance with the Redevelopment Guidelines, 2016 issued by the Government of Gujarat, and each beneficiary, including the petitioners, will receive new housing accommodation.

The court was further told that the petitioners, who are residing on the ground floor and first floor, have carried out illegal construction and established commercial shops within the society's boundary/margin area and that their illegal utilization of their individual units for commercial purposes should not be allowed to stall the redevelopment process.

While observing that the scheme is in the interest of the public at large and its objects could not be defeated at the behest of a few persons, Justice Nanavati observed, no fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners can be said to have been infringed by the action of the authorities.

While noting that the information regarding the benefits that will be made available to the petitioners by the developers and the GHB was already provided, the court held, “On the aforesaid ground, interest of justice would be served, if the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme Guidelines, 2016 be implemented in its true spirit, without any obstruction.”

"This Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the present petition stands dismissed, accordingly," the bench said.

Case Title: Hansaben Rtubhai Prajapati vs. State of Gujarat R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4216 of 2023

Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 71