The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed raising a cause of residents of District Narmada, Bharuch and Vadodara, who according to the petitioner had been badly affected on account of release of water from Narmada dam, which has caused flood in certain areas.

The petitioner is a resident of the city of Ahmedabad and claims to be a Social Worker and RTI Activist. The contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the compensation and relief package announced by the State Government to the victims and affected persons of the flood, in the month of September, 2023 is insufficient.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee observed that there is nothing on record which would indicate as to how the petitioner could gather the information with respect to the compensation and relief package provided by the State Government. There is no detail in the petition as to who are those persons who conveyed their grievances to the petitioner to raise this before us in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

“The present Public Interest Litigation which has been filed with incomplete statements with regard to the grievance of the flood affected victims, at the instance of the present petitioner who claims to be RTI Activist cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, we may note that there is no detail as to what kind of social work had been conducted by the petitioner for the cause of the victims of flood affected area. At last, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner raising grievances of victims of the flood affected area.”

The Bench noted that the Public Interest Litigation is a jurisdiction which is created with judicial pronouncements to espouse the cause of the downtrodden, the people who are not in a position to agitate their voices. However, the jurisdiction of the court in the nature of Public Interest Litigation cannot be used by a person like the present petitioner seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider his representation, like any other ordinary writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

As the petitioner has not been able to convince the Court that he is a public spirited person and is raising the genuine cause of victims of the flood affected area of District Narmada, Bharuch and Vadodara, the Bench finds the prayers made by the petitioner as misconceived.

The Supreme Court has today issued notice in a plea filed by a Gujarat-based non-profit organisation against in-situ rehabilitation of slum-dwellers on the pond/waste land so notified by the Irrigation Department of State of Gujarat under Section 5 of the Bombay Irrigation Act, 1879, alleging its contrary to the law laid down by Apex Court. 

A division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh issued notice in a plea filed by Paryavaran Mitra against allocating a water body to land for housing and developing encroachments under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (PMAY) in Gujarat. The petitioner has challenged an order dated July 16, 2019, passed by the Gujarat High Court which in turn had dismissed an appeal filed by one Jignesh Maheshbhai Pandya alleging the same. 

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde submitted for the petitioner that the affidavit has been filed by him and none responded to the affidavit. He sought the permission to file the SLP.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Gujarat and other respondents are directed by the Court to file their affidavit within 4 weeks and rejoinder in 2 weeks explaining that “water body” may be used for other purpose specially rehabilitation.

Water body must remain a water body: Apex Court

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul also commented that a “water body” must remain a water body. The court granted permission to the petitioners to file an SLP.

The Gujarat High Court had allowed the allocation of a land consisting a water body for rehabilitation and redevelopment of a slum area at Sahakarnagar, Opp. Mukti Nagar Society, Tandalja Road, Tandalja in Revenue Survey No. 444, T.P. No 22, F.P. No. 234 at Vadodara. 

The allocation of water body measuring 48,034 sqmt of land identified at village Tandalja, Taluka Vadodara, for development under government’s Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. The High Court had noted that present case is a glaring case of thousands of hutment dwellers, residing in about 1457 hutment dwelling units and occupying pond/waste land for around four decades. The dwellers came to be displaced by demolishing their huts and on an assurance given by the respondent no 2/ Vadodara Municipal Corporation for ‘In Situ’ rehabilitation for which contract was given to respondent no 4 through a public notice based on the policy of Public Private Partnership (PPP).

The Contract for said rehabilitation was given out to Cube Construction Engineering Limited through public notice based on the policy of Public Private Partnership and as a part of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna and Gujarat Slum Areas Act, 1973.

Also Read: Delhi High Court rejects plea calling Ganesh Chaturthi ads by Delhi govt amid Covid-19 illegal, unconstitutional

The area which was selected for carrying on the said development was a land measuring 48,034 sqmt at village Tandalja, Taluka Vadodara. The said area is notified as lake in village vide notification by Department of Narmada and water resources , Water Supply and Kalpasar Department, Sachivalaya, Government of Gujarat the said lake was notified as Kharabo Talavdi.

Key questions raised in plea  

Whether any water bodies can be alienated and used by state for any other purpose other than preservation even if the same involves rehabilitation of slum-dweller?

Whether occupancy rights or any kind of settlement right can be granted by state in respect of area declared as water body?

The petition has been filed by Mahesh Pandya of Paryavaran Mitra, a Gujarat based NGO involved in protection of environment and working on sustainable developments to preserves the lakes and water bodies in state of Gujarat.

The Supreme Court vide its order dated 16/12/2019 had noted that Paryavaran Mitra was not a party before the High Court and had directed it to file an affidavit so as to how he came into the picture. The Court had also directed the respondents to file a reply to the said affidavit. Following which the applicant/petitioner had filed an affidavit in Jan 2020. The Court had also directed the parties to submit note in two pages each limited to aspect as to the description of Revenue Survey No 444. 

The affidavit filed by the petitioner stated that the respondents can relocate the encroachers under Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana on any other land including land declared surplus under the erstwhile Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 but the respondent authorities cannot create a natural lake/water bodies such other land in place of which has already been notified as a lake/water body.

Also Read: Kerala HC directs administrator of Guruvayoor temple to file affidavit on decorations for high-profile wedding

Gujarat High Court’s findings 

The High Court had noted, “As it is discernible from the revenue records, out of the aforesaid land admeasuring 48,259 sq. mtrs in the Final Plot No. 234 only 4200 sq. mtrs is a water body/indented portion as is so described in the revenue records also as “Kharabo Talavdi – Waste Land – Water body – Tank – Proamboke”. Revenue records reveal a pit of 4200 sq. mtrs which both the State and the Corporation have gone on record to assure that the same will be rejuvenated, beautified and preserved as a lake/water body. The Court has to preserve the delicate balance between the two objectives of sustainable development and ecology.”

“As far as the existing area of water body of 4200 sq. mtrs is concerned the Corporation and the State authorities have on affidavit assured this Court of rejuvenating and beautifying the same. We, therefore, need to strike a balance in our care of the environment in juxtaposition with sustainable development. The hutment dwellers who have moved out to make way for construction of suitable housing under the Awas Yojana also deserve to be given their share in the economy of sustainability,” it said. 

The Court further stated that, “keeping the aforesaid principles in view, we do not see any reason to stall the project of rehabilitation and redevelopment of the slum area at Sahakarnagar, Opp. Mukti Nagar Society, Tandalja Road, Tandalja in Revenue Survey No. 444, T.P. No. 22, F.P. No. 234 at Vadodara.”