AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus NAWAB KHAN GULAB KHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 11-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
v. 
NAWAB KHAN GULAB KHAN AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 11, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Constitutio11 of I11dia, 1950: Articles 19(1)(e) and 21. 
Pavement-Dwellers-U11authorised encroachme11ts of pavements--
C Evictio11 of-Principles of Natural Justice-Complia11ce with-Removal of 
such e11croachments--By Municival Co1poration-Held : such unauthorised 
1:ncroachme11ts affected pedestliallS' light to free passage a11d also created 
u11hygmic ecology, traffic hazards and lisk to lives of pedestlia11S-He11ce, 
Municipal Corporation mtitled to remove encroachments without any delay, 
for, if it allowed encroachers to remai11 for a long pe1iod they might claim of 
D semblance of right-But such removal of encroachers must be according to 
the procedure which should be just, fair and reaso11able-Such a procedure 
should be pragmatic lllld realistic to meet given fact-Situation-If encroach-
ment was of recent origi11 no need to fallow pri11ciples of natural justice-But 
if encroachers were settled for a long time 11onnally 11otice of two weeks or JO 
E days would be 11ecessary to meet fairness of procedure-Bombay Municipal 
CorporationAct, 1955---Bombay Provincial Mu11icipal Corporatio11 Act. 
Pavement-Dwellers-Right to shelter-Held : fomzed part of fu11-
damental rights-Though no person had right to encroach on footpaths, 
pavements or public streets, State/Municipal Corporation had constitution-
F al/statutory duty to provide housing accommodation to the weaker sectio11s 
of society, if necessary by acquiring surplus land under Urban Land Ceiling 
Act-However, in all cases of ejectment of encroachers, it was not obligatory 
to provide alternative accommodation-No absolute pri11ciple of u11iversal 
application could be laid down in this regard and it would depend upon facts 
G of each case. 
Articles 38, 39, 46, 243-G, 243-W-Pavement-Dwellers-R.ight to shel-
ter-Socio-economic justice for SCs, STs, OBCs, rural and urban pooHln-
authorised encroachment of pavements-Problem of-Held : In view of 
constant migration of people from rural to urban areas resulting in mushroom 
H growth of slums and encroachment of pavements, Government should pro-
548 
AHMEDABAD MUN. CORPN. v. NAWAB KHAN GULAB KHAN 
549 
vi de infrastrnctural facilities in rnral areas by proper planning and execu-
A 
tion--Local bodies such as Gram Panchayats, Zila Parishads and 
Municipalities should prepare plans in accordance with Articles 243-G and 
243-W-Scheme J·or housing accommodation should be evolved for SCs, STs, 
OBCs and rnral and urban poor as an integral plan-State should eannark 
separate allocation in annual budget for implementation of such a 
scheme-Transfer of such housing accommodation allotted to these persons 
would be void ab initio--Comprehensive legislation in this regard recom-
mended. 
B 
Articles 32, 226 and 136-Pavement-Dwellers- Encroacher-Right to 
approach court-Held : Encroachers of pavement also have right to approach C 
court against their ejectment by Municipal Corporation-Court-Required to 
examine if wcroacher had any right to relief-State or local bodies should 
assist court by placing factual and legal position. 
Administrative Law: 
\. 
Natural Justice-Audi alteram partem-Applicability of-Held : Grant 
of hearing or notice not necessary for undoing an illegality of a recent 
origin-High handed and unauthorised acts did not call for opportunity of 
hearing which would be a tedious and time consuming process-Only if 
illegality was allowed to continue for a long time whereby semblance of right 
could be claimed an opportunity of hearing was necessary. 
The respondents were pavement-dwellers in unauthorised occupa-
D 
E 
tion of footpaths in a main road of the city. The respondents had con-
structed huts thereon. When the appellant- Corporation sought to remove 
their encroachments, the respondents approached the High Court by way F 
of a writ petition. The High Court directed the appellant-Corporation not 
to remove the respondents' huts until suitable· accommodation was 
provided to them. The High Court also further held that before removing 
the unauthorised encroachments the procedure of hearing, consistent with 
the principles of natural justice should be followed. Being aggrieved the G 
appellant-Corporation preferred the present appeal. 
The questions before this Court were (1) Whether the respondents 
were liable to ejectment from the encroachments of pavements of the roads 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.