Gujarat HC Disposes Demolition-Apprehension Petition After Corporation Gives Due-Process Assurance

The Gujarat High Court disposed of a writ petition filed over fear of demolition after the respondent-Corporation assured the court it would follow due process and issue notice before any coercive action against the petitioner's residential property.

Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, sitting singly at the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, disposed of Special Civil Application No. 9176 of 2026 on 3 August 2026. The petitioner, Shaikh Husain Ajij, had approached the court fearing that the respondent-Corporation would demolish his residential accommodation. The Corporation's counsel gave an express assurance that no demolition of the petitioner's property was intended at present, and that due process — including appropriate notice — would be followed before any coercive step. The court found that assurance sufficient and directed the Corporation to act in accordance with law if it ever chose to proceed against the property.

Petitioner's Apprehension and the Basis for Filing

The petition arose from a specific factual concern: adjacent premises had already been demolished by the Corporation, and the petitioner feared his own residential property would meet the same fate. That fear — rather than an already-issued demolition notice — formed the basis of the writ.

Mr. Zamir Z. Shaikh appeared for the petitioner. The State was represented by Government Pleader Mr. G.H. Virk with AGP Ms. Dharitri Pancholi. The Corporation was represented by Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi.

Corporation's Position and the Linked Proceeding

Mr. Trivedi, for the Corporation, informed the court that the broader demolition issue was already being examined by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 8712 of 2026. As far as the petitioner's specific property was concerned, Mr. Trivedi stated that the Corporation did not intend to demolish it at present. He further assured the court that if the Corporation were to take any steps against the property in the future, it would do so only after issuing appropriate notice and following the procedure prescribed by law.

Court's Reasoning for Disposal

Justice Kariel accepted the Corporation's statement and found that it left nothing further for the court to direct — other than formally recording that the Corporation must take appropriate steps in accordance with law before resorting to any coercive measure against the property. The court did not go into the merits of whether any demolition action would ultimately be lawful; it acted on the Corporation's representation to close the petition.

The court's direction is narrow: it binds the Corporation to due process — notice and procedure as per law — before taking any coercive action against the property in question. The linked matter in SCA No. 8712 of 2026 continues separately before the court.

Outcome

The petition was disposed of with the observation that the respondent-Corporation must take appropriate steps in accordance with law if any coercive measures are intended against the petitioner's property. No further relief was granted beyond recording the Corporation's assurance.