Gujarat HC Says Surat Corporation Must Rebuild or Relocate Residents After Illegal Demolition, Five Officers Suspended

The Gujarat High Court held the Surat Municipal Corporation squarely responsible for an unauthorised demolition and directed it to file a proposal for rebuilding or relocating the displaced residents by the next date of hearing.

Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, sitting singly at the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, passed an oral order on 2 July 2026 in Special Civil Application No. 8712 of 2026, a writ petition filed by 26 residents — led by Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen — whose homes were demolished in Surat. The court recorded, on the basis of affidavits filed by the Surat Municipal Corporation itself, that the demolition was “completely illegal.” With that fact now undisputed, the bench placed the obligation of relief squarely on the Corporation: it must either rebuild the residences at their original location or negotiate alternative accommodation. The Municipal Commissioner was directed to file a concrete proposal by the next date of hearing, fixed for 9 July 2026. Separately, five municipal officers present during the demolition have already been suspended pending departmental inquiry.

What the Petitioners Placed Before the Court

Senior Advocate Ms. Trusha Patel, with advocates Mr. Nirav Sanghavi and Mr. A.S. Timbalia, appeared for the 26 petitioners. On behalf of the petitioners, an affidavit was tendered annexing transcripts of conversations with a police official who had reached the site after some petitioners called the Police Helpline No. 112. Additional transcripts involving senior officers and photographs were also placed before the court. The purpose of this material was to establish that each petitioner had a residential presence in the area that was demolished. The court accepted the affidavit on record.

Torrent Power's Account of Electricity Disconnection

Advocate Mr. Salil Thakore appeared for Respondent No. 15, Torrent Power Limited, and tendered an affidavit of Mr. Umang Dutt, Vice President (Operations), Surat Unit. The affidavit described how the Ahmedabad helpline of Torrent Power received three telephone calls from a person named Shaileshbhai, claiming to be from the Central Zone of the Surat Municipal Corporation, about a proposed demolition.

Officers of the Surat office were sent to the location. They were initially directed to a different place where no demolition activity was found, and then to a second location which also proved to be incorrect. When they eventually reached the correct site, the residences were already being demolished. At that point — around 10:30 am — electricity to the area was disconnected. Some of Torrent Power's own meters had been damaged or destroyed in the demolition work by that time. The disconnection was justified by the company as necessary to prevent loss of life or injury from live electrical connections during demolition. The court took this affidavit on record and noted that further steps concerning Torrent Power would be considered after further hearing.

Surat Municipal Corporation's Admission and Internal Inquiry

Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi appeared for the Surat Municipal Corporation along with Mr. Anuj Trivedi. The Corporation filed an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner that disclosed the sequence of events in detail.

The plot in question belonged to certain private individuals who had engaged third parties — the developer respondents numbered 10 to 14 in the petition — for development. On 12 March 2026, a plot validation certification was sought from the Corporation, which was rejected. Subsequently, at the request of Respondent No. 10, the developer, some officers of the Central Zone informed police authorities that a physical demarcation of the prescribed street-line would be carried out on 30 May 2026, and police protection was sought for this procedure. The Municipal Commissioner stated categorically that the demolition had taken place during the course of what was notified as a demarcation exercise.

The Corporation accepted that no underlying decision authorised the demolition. A Preliminary Inquiry Committee was constituted, headed by a Deputy Municipal Commissioner. A report from that committee was received on 30 June 2026. It concluded that the concerned officers were not disclosing the full facts and that a further inquiry was required. Following this report, five officers who were present at the demolition site were suspended from service, pending departmental proceedings. The Commissioner also submitted that steps to temporarily relocate the displaced persons had been initiated.

The court noted that the Corporation's own affidavit made it clear that the demolition was “completely illegal.”

The Court's Prima Facie Finding on the Corporation's Duty

Justice Kariel observed that since the fact of the demolition being unauthorised was now undisputed, the Corporation could not treat its obligation as discharged by a preliminary inquiry or the suspension of officers. The bench held that it is the Corporation's duty to ensure that persons displaced by its unauthorised act are “appropriately accommodated.” The court identified two paths for this: rebuilding the residences at the very place where they stood before the demolition, or arriving at private negotiations if the displaced persons could be accommodated elsewhere.

The Municipal Commissioner was directed to place a concrete proposal on record by way of affidavit before the next hearing.

Police Accountability: State Asked to Explain Its Stand

Assistant Government Pleader Mr. G.H. Virk appeared for the State respondents along with advocates Ms. Dharitri Pancholi and Mr. Jay Barot. A further affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Surat City was tendered by the State. In that affidavit, the Commissioner of Police sought to justify the presence of police personnel at the site and to explain why police officials had not taken proactive steps to stop the demolition when it was under way.

Justice Kariel was not persuaded by this posture at the prima facie stage. The bench observed that once the demolition was clearly unauthorised, it became the “bounden duty” of the police authority to have acted upon the complaints filed by some of the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader sought further time to take instructions. On a specific query from the bench about the State's overall stand on the incident, the Government Pleader again sought time to file an appropriate affidavit from the concerned department.

The court accepted the Police Commissioner's affidavit on record but kept the question of the State's accountability open for the next date.

Outcome

Justice Nikhil S. Kariel directed that the matter be listed on 9 July 2026. Before that date, the Municipal Commissioner of the Surat Municipal Corporation is required to file an affidavit containing a proposal for either rebuilding the demolished residences at the original location or accommodating the displaced persons through negotiated arrangements elsewhere. The State respondents are to place on record an affidavit setting out their stand on the entire incident. The question of further directions concerning Torrent Power Limited and the conduct of the police authorities remains to be addressed after hearing at the next date.