Today 8th April, The Gujarat High Court rejected pleas by two Sabarmati Ashram residents challenging compensation in the redevelopment project, dismissing claims of a hidden fourth option for compensation. The residents initially opted for Rs 90 lakh in cash but failed to vacate on time, leading to their petitions being dismissed by both a single judge bench and the High Court.
Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court rejected pleas by two Sabarmati Ashram residents challenging compensation in redevelopment project. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the pleas filed by two residents of the Sabarmati Ashram who dissatisfied with the compensation offered to them for vacating their houses as part of the ashram’s redevelopment project.
The residents, Jayesh Vaghela and Karan Soni, raised objections to the compensation options provided to them, which included Rs 90 lakh in cash, a flat, or a tenement. They claimed that they deceived because there an undisclosed fourth option of land plus Rs 25 lakh and a two-year rent of Rs 12,000 per month.
Read Also: “What is happening in Gujarat HC?
The petitioners decided to accept the cash compensation instead of a flat or tenement. However, they failed to vacate the premises within the stipulated timeframe and subsequently filed a plea seeking a halt to the demolition initiated by the authorities.
The court observed that the petitioners willingly signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on October 4, 2021, indicating their choice of the Rs 90 lakh cash option. The residents paid Rs 60 lakh upfront, with the condition that they vacate the property within 30 days. However, they failed to comply with the agreement.
Earlier, a single judge bench of the High Court also dismissed their petitions, noting that the petitioners voluntarily signed the MoU and selected the Rs 90 lakh cash option out of the three choices provided.
The court in its order noted that,
“The petitioner’s claim lacks support from any evidence on record, and there is no instance presented where any of the 260 long-term tenants of Ashram have been given or have exercised such an option,”
Read Also: GUJARAT HC REFUSES TO STAY DEFAMATION CASE
The court further remarked,
“The assertion of a fourth option derived from the document included in the communication of the current mamlatdar of Sabarmati.”
The court stated,
“When questioned by the court, the petitioners failed to provide any example of land grant or allocation coupled with financial compensation, as suggested to be a fourth option. We cannot make any objections to the three options specified in the MoU,”
The court also noted there no valid basis for challenging the order of the single judge. The petitioners seemed to change their minds after receiving Rs 60 lakh and instead of vacating the property as agreed, they decided to keep possession of it and refused to accept the remaining compensation of Rs 30 lakh.
The court also commented that filing a petition in 2024 merely an afterthought on the part of the petitioners. Furthermore, it stated,
“We may further note that both the petitioners have received the remaining amount of Rs 30 lakh and handed over vacant possession of the property on March 1, 2024, thereafter the properties in question have been demolished.”