Mahatma Gandhi Ashram Redevelopment: Gujarat High Court Rejects Appeal By Former Residents Challenging Compensation

On Monday, the Gujarat High Court rejected the appeal of two former occupants of the Sabarmati Gandhi Ashram complex, who had raised objections regarding the compensation they were provided for relocating from their homes as part of a redevelopment initiative.

The petitions filed by Jayesh Vaghela and Karan Soni, residents of the ashram premises, were rejected by the division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, following a previous refusal by a single judge bench to entertain their plea.

The petitioners claimed that the state government had not fully disclosed all available options in its rehabilitation and resettlement policy for Ashram residents, affected by the Rs 1,200-crore Gandhi Ashram Memorial and Precinct Development project.

Jayesh Vaghela and Karan Soni, residents of Jamna Kutir (named after the iconic industrialist Jamnalal Bajaj) located near the Ashram and part of the redevelopment area, disclosed during the hearing that they had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the government on 4.10.2021, agreeing to receive monetary compensation of Rs 90 lakh. Additionally, the government had provided them with other rehabilitation options, including choosing a tenement or a 4BHK flat.

The government valued both the tenement and the flat at Rs 90 lakh each, according to the official assessment.

The petitioners informed the Court that they were not informed at the time of accepting the compensation that choosing a flat would entail receiving a fully furnished one. Additionally, they argued that a fourth option of rehabilitation, which included land along with Rs 25 lakh and two years' rent at Rs 12,000 per month, was added later.

Notably, initially, in February, the petitioners filed a petition alleging that the process of acquisition, whether through compensation or alternative accommodation, lacked consistency, transparency, and fairness, deeming it unlawful and authoritarian. But that petition was dismissed on February 29 by Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati of the Gujarat High Court. The dismissal was mainly based on the fact that the petitioners had consented to the compensation after due procedure, and their subsequent allegations lacked substantiation. The court had further noted that there was no violation of fundamental rights warranting its intervention through extraordinary measures.

The petitioners challenged their dismissal in an appeal, but on Monday, the Court upheld the original decision, citing lack of merit.

Chief Justice Agarwal said, "On a query made by the court, the petitioners could not bring any such instance of grant or allotment of land along with money as indicated as a fourth option. We can't take any exception to the three options given in the MoU," the court said.

She further pointed out that the petitioners failed to provide evidence to support their claim that some residents were offered an additional option for rehabilitation.

She remarked, “It seems that petitioners having received a sum of Rs 60 lakh, had a second thought to seek further property from the respondents (authorities) and instead of vacating the property in question, within 30 days of signing of MoU (as was stipulated in the MoU conditions) on 4.10.2021, they retained its possession and refused to receive the remaining compensation of Rs 30 lakh."

"The act of the petitioners in filing the petition before a single judge , that too in the year 2024, is nothing but an afterthought. We may further note that after dismissal of writ petition (by the single judge), both petitioners have received the remaining amount of compensation of Rs 30 lakh and handed over possession on March 1 whereafter properties in question have been demolished," she further explained.

Consequently, the Court upheld the single judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: JAYESHBHAI BABULAL VAGHELA & ANR. V/S STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 43