Introduction:
The Gujarat High Court in Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (R/Special Civil Application No. 8712 of 2026) has raised serious prima facie concerns over the conduct of a demolition exercise carried out in Surat, allegedly under the guise of a demarcation process. The matter came before Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, where the Court examined whether municipal authorities, in coordination with police presence, had exceeded lawful limits by demolishing residential properties without proper authority.
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging a large-scale demolition drive undertaken in Surat, alleging that their properties, along with those of several other residents, were demolished during what was officially projected as a demarcation exercise. According to the petitioners, the presence of police personnel at the site was secured under the pretext of maintaining law and order during demarcation, but the situation escalated into an unlawful demolition carried out by officials of the Surat Municipal Corporation.
The case raises important constitutional and administrative law questions concerning procedural safeguards in demolition actions, the role of police in civil enforcement activities, and the extent of accountability of municipal authorities when allegations of illegal demolition are made. The Court’s observations also touch upon the broader issue of state action affecting property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution and the requirement of due process before deprivation of property.
During the hearing held on June 29, the Court examined affidavits submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, and considered submissions made by the State Government Pleader, the Advocate General for the Surat Municipal Corporation, and counsel representing Torrent Power Limited. The matter also involved allegations of possible collusion between municipal officials and private entities, making it a multi-dimensional dispute requiring detailed judicial scrutiny.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners contended that the demolition drive conducted in Surat was illegal, arbitrary, and carried out without any authority of law. They alleged that what was formally presented as a demarcation exercise was, in substance, a coordinated demolition operation that resulted in the destruction of residential properties belonging to the petitioners and other similarly placed residents. According to them, the presence of police personnel at the site was sought only to facilitate the demarcation process and ensure maintenance of law and order, but the situation was misused by municipal officials to carry out demolition without following due legal procedure.
It was further submitted that no prior notice, hearing, or opportunity was given to the affected persons before the alleged demolition, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The petitioners argued that the demolition violated settled constitutional principles, particularly the right to protection of property under Article 300A, which mandates that deprivation of property must be strictly in accordance with authority of law. They also contended that the police, instead of preventing the unlawful activity, failed to intervene despite being present at the site, thereby indirectly facilitating the demolition.
On the other hand, the State Government, through the Government Pleader, placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City. It was submitted that the police machinery had been activated immediately upon receipt of a complaint filed by one of the petitioners and that statements of approximately ten persons, including police officers, had been recorded as part of the inquiry. The State argued that the investigation into the incident was ongoing and that preliminary steps had already been taken to ascertain the factual circumstances surrounding the demolition.
The Government Pleader further contended that the role of the police at the site was limited to maintaining law and order, as they had been requisitioned by the Surat Municipal Corporation in anticipation of possible disturbance. It was argued that the police were not required to evaluate the legality of the municipal action but only to ensure that no breach of peace occurred during the demarcation exercise.
However, the petitioners strongly disputed this position and maintained that the presence of police was misused to lend legitimacy to an otherwise illegal demolition. They argued that when a large-scale demolition takes place under the guise of demarcation, police officials present at the site cannot remain passive spectators and are duty-bound to intervene if unlawful acts are being committed.
The Surat Municipal Corporation, represented by the Advocate General, took a different stand, submitting that the demolition was not carried out under any authorised instruction or formal approval of the Corporation. A note issued by the Municipal Commissioner was placed before the Court indicating that an internal inquiry had been initiated into the incident. The Corporation further informed the Court that an inquiry report was expected and that appropriate action would be taken based on its findings.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Corporation that, pursuant to the Court’s earlier directions, arrangements had been made to provide temporary accommodation to the affected residents. A community centre near the demolition site had been converted into a shelter facility, with arrangements for hygiene and medical support for displaced persons.
Additionally, counsel appearing for Torrent Power Limited submitted that electricity connections at the site were disconnected as a precautionary measure after receiving information about the ongoing demolition activity. It was argued that officers of the company acted to prevent potential danger to life and property after observing damage to electricity meters during the incident. However, the Court expressed prima facie doubts regarding the manner in which the power utility had acted upon informal communication.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, while hearing the matter, made significant prima facie observations questioning the legality of the actions undertaken at the demolition site. The Court noted that where police bandobast was specifically sought for a demarcation exercise, any demolition carried out under the guise of such demarcation raised serious concerns regarding abuse of process and misuse of administrative authority.
The Court observed that if demolition activity was indeed carried out during a purported demarcation exercise, it was the duty of police officials present at the site to intervene and prevent such illegal action. The Bench expressed prima facie disagreement with the submission that police officers were only required to ensure maintenance of law and order without assessing whether the actions being undertaken were lawful. The Court indicated that such an interpretation would dilute the responsibility of law enforcement authorities when confronted with potentially unlawful state action.
Referring to the affidavit submitted by the Commissioner of Police, the Court stated that it was not prima facie satisfied with the explanation provided. The Court observed that the Commissioner of Police, upon learning of a large-scale demolition that appeared to be without legal authority, ought not to have waited for a formal complaint but should have taken immediate preventive steps.
The Bench further noted that the explanation offered by the Government Pleader, suggesting that police were present only for maintaining law and order, was prima facie unacceptable in the facts of the case. The Court observed that when police protection is provided for a specific limited purpose such as demarcation, any deviation from that purpose resulting in demolition activity requires immediate corrective intervention by the police.
The Court also scrutinised the submissions made on behalf of Torrent Power Limited and expressed prima facie scepticism regarding the claim that electricity disconnection was carried out solely on the basis of a telephonic intimation. The Court observed that such submissions did not immediately appear reasonable and required further clarification through affidavit.
Taking into account the competing versions presented by the parties, the Court issued notice on the petition and directed multiple authorities to file detailed affidavits. The Surat Police Commissioner was specifically directed to respond to the Court’s prima facie observations regarding the adequacy of the police response and the steps taken upon learning of the demolition.
The Court also directed the Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation to file an affidavit detailing the inquiry conducted into the incident, along with the action taken pursuant to the inquiry report. Additionally, the Corporation was required to clarify allegations of collusion between municipal officials and private respondents.
Torrent Power Limited was directed to place on record an affidavit explaining its standard operating procedures for handling demolition-related intimation and the circumstances under which electricity supply was disconnected in the present case.
Importantly, the Court directed that the municipal authorities must continue providing basic facilities, including shelter, hygiene, and medical support to the affected residents until further orders. This direction reflected the Court’s concern for the immediate humanitarian consequences faced by displaced persons.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 2, where the Court is expected to examine the affidavits and further investigate the legality of the demolition operation and the role of various state and private actors involved.
The case highlights the judiciary’s continuing vigilance over administrative actions that affect citizens’ property rights and underscores the requirement that all state actions, particularly demolition drives, must strictly comply with due process, legality, and constitutional safeguards.