5 min readJul 3, 2026 05:08 AM IST
First published on: Jul 2, 2026 at 09:19 PM IST
The Gujarat High Court on Thursday said that it is the duty of the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) to ensure that over 100 families displaced by the “unauthorised” demolitions at Nasir Nagar on May 30 are appropriately accommodated by building residences “at the very place” or “elsewhere”.
The court also directed the SMC Commissioner to include a proposal in that regard in the affidavit before the court by July 9 when the matter will be heard next.
The High Court also directed the Gujarat government to make clear its stand on the matter through an affidavit even as the municipal commissioner submitted that the officers concerned were not coming out “truthfully” which required further inquiry into their roles.
The court of Justice Nikhil Kariel passed an oral order while hearing a petition filed by 26 of the persons affected by the demolition by SMC officials on May 30.
The court of Justice Nikhil Kariel passed an oral order while hearing a petition filed by 26 of the persons affected by the demolition by SMC officials on May 30.
During the hearing, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, appearing for SMC, and Government Pleader Gursharan Virk, appearing for Surat Police commissioner Anupam Singh Gahlaut, submitted affidavits. A senior official of Torrent Power Limited also submitted an affidavit through his lawyer Salil Thakore. The advocate of the petitioners, Trusha Patel, also submitted an additional affidavit on certain aspects related to the incident which were not placed on record.
SMC chief’s affidavit
Referring to the affidavit submitted by the Surat Municipal Commissioner, the court observed in its order, that the Advocate General’s affidavit had “inter alia pointed out that the plot in question belonged to certain private individuals and they had sought to develop the same with some third parties…On 12.03.2026, a plot validation certification had been sought from the corporation and the same had been rejected.”
“It is also submitted that on account of some request emanating from the respondent no.10 – developer – so as to carry out physical demarcation of the prescribed street-line, some of the officers of the Central Zone (of the SMC), without any underlying decision, had intimated to the police authorities as regards a proposed procedure of demarcation which would be undertaken on 30.05.2026 and whereas, the police protection had been sought for. It has been categorically submitted by the Commissioner that during the course of demarcation, the demolition had occurred. Thus, it would appear that the Corporation is clear about the fact that the demolition was completely illegal,“ the court added.
Referring to the report of the committee, the court observed in its order that the former had opined that, “…the officers concerned were not coming out with the details truthfully and therefore, further inquiry would be required into their roles.”
In his affidavit, as recorded in the court’s order, the SMC Commissioner also informed the court that a preliminary inquiry committee, headed by a Deputy Municipal Commissioner, had been formed and it submitted its report on June 30. Following the report, five SMC officials have been suspended in the episode.
Referring to the report of the committee, the court observed in its order that the former had opined that, “…the officers concerned were not coming out with the details truthfully and therefore, further inquiry would be required into their roles.”
The Advocate General also submitted that appropriate steps have been undertaken to temporarily relocate the displaced persons.
Taking the affidavit of the SMC Commissioner on record, the court observed in the oral order, “Prima facie, in view of the fact which is now undisputed as regards the demolition being unauthorised, to this Court, it would appear that it is the duty of the Corporation to ensure that the persons displaced by the unauthorised demolition are appropriately accommodated either by rebuilding their residences at the very same place where it stood before the demolition or by way of private negotiations if the displaced persons could be accommodated elsewhere. A proposal in this regard shall be placed by the Commissioner on record by way of affidavit by the next date of hearing.”
Police affidavit
The court also took the affidavit of Surat Police Commissioner on record in which the latter “attempted to justify” the police presence at the demolition site. In this context, the court observed in its order, “Prima facie, when it is clear that the demolition was unauthorised and then it becomes the bounden duty of the police authority to have acted upon the complaint filed by some of the petitioners. That being the prima facie observation of this Court, learned Government Pleader would seek for some further time to take appropriate instructions.”
The court also directed the Government Pleader to place the stand of the state government over the entire incident in the form of an affidavit. The Government Pleader sought time to place an appropriate affidavit on record by the concerned department and the court posted the matter to July 9 for further hearing.
Following the report, five SMC officials have been suspended in the episode. (Credit: Pexels) 
The court of Justice Nikhil Kariel passed an oral order while hearing a petition filed by 26 of the persons affected by the demolition by SMC officials on May 30.
Referring to the report of the committee, the court observed in its order that the former had opined that, “…the officers concerned were not coming out with the details truthfully and therefore, further inquiry would be required into their roles.”
Share
