The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that it will not allow the Surat Corporation to back out of its agreement to rehabilitate residents whose homes were demolished.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has orally observed that it will not permit the Surat Municipal Corporation to resile from its earlier agreement to provide accommodation to residents of Nasir Nagar in Surat, whose homes were demolished in a June demolition drive that the residents describe as illegal, and has indicated that the status quo ante should be restored for now [Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others].
Justice Nikhil S. Kariel heard the special civil application on 9 October 2026. The Court has asked the Municipal Commissioner and the head of the elected wing of the Corporation to be present at the next hearing, on 23 October 2026, to explain the change in the Corporation’s stance.
The case
The petitioners are residents of Nasir Nagar who challenge the June demolition drive, which they allege was illegal. The Corporation had earlier agreed, through the Advocate General, to provide them accommodation. At the hearing, the Corporation’s counsel said rehabilitation was possible under an earlier scheme, which the petitioners did not accept. The petitioners’ counsel told the Court that compensation could be an alternative if decent housing could not be offered; the petitions seek Rs. 10 lakh. The Corporation also contended that some of the occupants were in illegal occupation.
What the Court said
Reacting to the Corporation’s change of position, Justice Kariel remarked:
Now if the Corporation is attempting to back out, I will not permit it.
The Court rejected the idea of relying on a central government scheme to cover the Corporation’s own conduct. It said the Corporation could not plead funding limits, observing that it has substantial funds, and indicated that it could recover costs from the employees responsible and may be vicariously liable. On whether rehabilitation would be by housing or by compensation, the Court said the choice was the Corporation’s.
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court Seeks State Reply on PIL Alleging Illegal Demolition of Homes in Kogilu Layout
On the Corporation’s argument that some occupants were in illegal occupation, the Court noted that the question had not been decided and that it could not justify a demolition carried out without following proper legal procedure. These were oral remarks at an interim stage and no final finding has been recorded on the legality of the demolition or on the occupants’ status.
Why the order matters
The remarks show the Court holding a civic body to a commitment it made in the course of the litigation, whatever its later view on how the commitment should be funded or delivered. By leaving it to the Corporation to choose between housing and compensation, while asking its top officials to explain the reversal in person, the Court has kept the focus on the Corporation’s own accountability to the displaced residents.
The Corporation’s position that some residents were unauthorised occupants remains open, and the Court has said it does not by itself justify demolition without due process. The final outcome will depend on the hearing on 23 October.
Case Title: Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [R/SCA/8712/2026]
Bench: Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, Gujarat High Court
Date of Hearing: October 9, 2026
Appearances: not stated.