Gujarat High Court: In an application wherein, the petitioners challenged the action of redevelopment of the houses and prayed for quashing the order of the Competent Officer directing the petitioner to vacate the property within a period of 30 days. The Single-Judge Bench of Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the petitioner’s application and held that the redevelopment scheme was for the benefit of the public at large.
Brief Facts of the Case:
In the matter at hand, the owner (‘petitioner’) of the house in Surya Apartments, Ahmedabad, (‘premises’) challenged the action of the respondent authorities for announcement of the redevelopment scheme of the premises under Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 on the grounds that the action of the authority was non-compliant with the principles of natural justice as their consent was not taken for the same purpose, which is a pre-requisite for any redevelopment scheme. Aggrieved by the petitioner’s action, the Competent Officer passed the impugned order on 06-02-2023, directing the petitioner to vacate the property within a period of 30 days. Aggrieved by the order of the Competent Officer, the petitioner challenged the said order before the Court.
Analysis and Observation:
The Court referred to the redevelopment scheme and viewed that it was laid down under and by the Gujarat Housing Board (‘GHB’) in 1986 which incorporates 132 houses. Out of the 132 houses, 115 members had, through the association, comprising of all the members of the society itself addressed a letter to GHB, requesting the GHB to initiate the process of redevelopment and it was submitted that the association was agreeable and consented to the redevelopment scheme floated by GHB. The Court noted that the letter from the association proves that more than 75% of members had consented to the redevelopment, thus, most of the members consented.
It was further noted that redevelopment of the premises was in accordance with the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme Guidelines, 2016 (‘Redevelopment Guideline, 2016’) issued by the Government of Gujarat. Thus, the Scheme of Redevelopment Guidelines, 2016 governed the facts of the present case. In the post-redevelopment structure, each of 132 beneficiaries, including the present petitioners, would receive new, state of the art housing accommodation.
The Court said that the said application was filed by only 14 individuals (i.e., a minority comprising of 9-10%) out of a total number of 132 beneficiaries. The consent of 118 beneficiaries out of 132 beneficiaries was received by the GHB, at the relevant point of time. Further, the premises wherein redevelopment was to be carried out were built in the year 1986, thus, the premises was more than 32 years old, and the redevelopment would be in the interest of the residents.
Further, the Court said that the Redevelopment Guideline, 2016 were issued by the Government taking into consideration the benefits to the unit holders and the same is formulated for the benefits of the premises, which required redevelopment. Moreover, the petitioners objected to the redevelopment scheme, at a stage when 75% of members had already agreed. Thus, the Court held that the object of the Scheme laid was in the interest of public at large and the said object was not to be defeated at the behest of few persons. Further, no fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners were infringed by any action on the part of the respondent authorities.
The Court observed that the public interest will always have precedence over private interest of the parties, more particularly interest of justice would be served, if the Redevelopment Guidelines, 2016 be implemented in its true spirit, without any obstruction.
[Hansaben Ratubhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 991, decided on 11-04-2023]
