New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday directed that status quo be maintained at a slum site in Chharanagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, where demolition was allegedly being carried out despite the Court’s earlier protective order.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while hearing a plea by 49 slum dwellers who claimed that they were being forcibly evicted without proper notice or rehabilitation, in violation of the Gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1973.
The matter was first mentioned before the Court on Thursday, when temporary protection from demolition was granted till Monday (April 28). However, after reports emerged that demolition activities had resumed at the site, the petitioner’s counsel, AoR Sumitra Kumari Choudhary, urgently mentioned the matter again, seeking enforcement of the interim relief.
The Bench questioned the petitioner’s counsel regarding relocation of slum dwellers as part of the area’s redevelopment plan. When it was submitted that the rent compensation offered of Rs 6,000 per month was insufficient even for a slum accommodation, the Court advised the petitioners to accept the available alternative housing, and assured that the Court would address the rent differential if necessary.
Posting the matter for detailed hearing on April 28, the Court emphasized that no further demolition should take place in the interim.
The petitioners had earlier approached the Gujarat High Court challenging a public notice dated January 29, 2025, which required them to vacate their homes within 30 days.
They contended that individual notices were not served, and only a public notice was issued, violating their rights under the Slum Act. They also alleged that demolition began on March 20, 2025, without proper procedure.
The State of Gujarat, in response, argued that the area had been declared a “Slum Clearance Area” in 2019, and that all structures were unauthorized. A work order had been issued to a private developer, and multiple public notices were pasted at the site. The State maintained that the petitioners were attempting to stall a long-pending redevelopment project, which had already benefited hundreds of residents.
The High Court had rejected the slum dwellers’ plea, holding that due procedure was followed and over 508 beneficiaries were already relocated and awaiting new housing. It further observed that seven residential towers had already been constructed, undermining the claim that the petitioners were unaware of the redevelopment process.
The High Court had granted 30 days’ time for voluntary vacation, provided the petitioners filed an undertaking.
Now, with the Supreme Court stepping in and indicating sympathy toward the plight of the slum residents, particularly on the issue of inadequate rent compensation, the case is set to be further heard on April 28, with the Court’s assurance of balanced relief keeping the demolition in abeyance till then.
UNI
