‘Something fishy’… ‘Axe must fall’: Gujarat High Court pushes but no end to mystery over a Surat demolition

“The concern is that the state’s image as a model state is being sullied… What message are you sending out if, while an inquiry is being conducted, the impression remains that senior officers cannot be touched?” the court said.

Commuters move past debris of demolished houses in the Nashir Nagar area of Katargam, in Surat. (PTI)

A demolition ‘without an order’

Measuring around 20,740 sq m, the land on which the Nasirnagar shanties were located is owned by a Parsi family. The family contracted the land to private builders to develop it and, in March this year, it approached the SMC for plot validation. The corporation refused as it had not been given possession of a mandatory 40-feet-wide public road.

SMC Central Zone officials fixed May 30 for physical demarcation of the road, informing electricity supplier Torrent Power Ltd about the exercise to prevent any accident, as well as requesting police protection.

Instead, during the exercise, the demolition happened, with residents claiming they were not served any notice. The operation allegedly continued over two days, rendering nearly 150 people homeless.

Initially, the SMC distanced itself from the demolition saying that the officials had gone only for demarcation.

A group of 26 affected residents challenged the action before the HC, in a separate ongoing case, seeking accountability and rehabilitation. (Express Photo)

On June 8, Commissioner Nagarajan told The Indian Express that the SMC had “no locus standi” in the demolition. “The land is owned by a private party which has contributed a portion under the town planning scheme for a road. Our team went to the spot for land marking for the road area. As per the rules, a notice was issued to the residents and the slums were demolished after hearing them.”

Finally, around three weeks after the demolition, Nagarajan released a video statement saying that Central Zone officials had gone for demarcation of the public road, and that, “during the process… these officers also carried out the demolition”.

On June 8, 26 displaced residents moved the High Court seeking justice and compensation, naming the Gujarat government, the Municipal Commissioner, the Surat police chief, several SMC officials and Torrent Power Ltd as respondents.

Among those named was SMC Executive Engineer (Road Development Department) Sujal Prajapati. On July 2, Prajapati was suspended along with four others.

The decision to suspend the officials for an “indefinite period” came after the court asked what steps SMC authorities had taken against the officials who were present during the demolition drive.

Subsequently, Prajapati moved the High Court against his suspension.

On June 10, at a Surat coordination committee meeting, BJP Katargam MLA Vinu Moradiya questioned the fact that the probe committee comprised “colleagues of those responsible”. Moradiya told The Indian Express, “According to my information, a builder’s land is near the Nasirnagar area, and he wanted to get these slums removed… Something fishy is going on.”

In the dock

Two separate petitions are currently before two different Benches of the Gujarat High Court. The main petition — filed by the residents of Nasirnagar challenging the demolition and seeking rehabilitation – is before the single-judge Bench of Justice Nikhil Kariel.

A separate petition, filed by Prajapati, is before the single-judge Bench of Justice Niral Mehta, in which he has arraigned Nagarajan as a respondent.

In his submission before the Bench of Justice Kariel, Nagarajan said that on checking the records, he learnt that “there was no order passed by any authority of the corporation, much less by the Commissioner, directing… demolition”.

“The task relating to the public road demarcation was unfortunately followed by removal / demolition of unauthorised construction on the land in question,” the Commissioner said.

Justice Kariel observed that, prima facie, the SMC had itself accepted that the action was illegal and that the demolition of a single house without due process could “not be countenanced”. Ordering the SMC to prepare a rehabilitation plan, it told the civic body: “The axe has to fall, and it will.”

At the last hearing, on July 30, when the state informed Justice Kariel that it had constituted a high-level inquiry involving two senior municipal administration officers, the court questioned as to why Nagarajan had been allowed to continue as the SMC chief even as a committee investigated his role. It was not even insisting on removal, the court observed. “You have a hundred ways of accommodating an officer.”

The court also asked that the police’s role in the demolition be examined.

The matter is next listed for August 10.

Prajapati’s case

On July 13, in his petition before Justice Mehta, Prajapati submitted the purported WhatsApp messages from Nagarajan to him, allegedly asking for the work to be completed “as soon as possible”. He only followed the orders of the Commissioner, Prajapati said.

As per these WhatsApp messages, Nagarajan forwarded a text in Gujarati to Prajapati on May 30, identifying specific survey numbers in Ward No. 7 of Nasirnagar, and saying that a town planning road had already been cleared over most of the land and that the remaining encroachment was to be removed. The Commissioner purportedly appended this instruction to say that the work be completed “as soon as possible”. Prajapati replied “Ji Sir”, and said he would coordinate with the Central Zone.

The same evening, Nagarajan and Prajapati purportedly exchanged messages where Prajapati sent progress updates, and Nagarajan responded with an “Okay”.

Prajapati’s counsel also submitted screenshots of purported messages on an official WhatsApp group on the day of the demolition, including one by Nagarajan sharing a post from the SMC’s Instagram handle praising the demolition exercise.

Prajapati’s counsel argued that these purported messages contradict Nagarajan’s affidavit that “no order was passed by any authority” directing the demolition. “Our case is that the petitioner acted only because the Commissioner… told him to complete the work,” Prajapati has told the court.

Hearing on this matter too has been fixed for August 10.

Asked about the case, MLA Moradiya repeated his misgivings regarding the probe, adding: “The matter is sub-judice, so I cannot comment.”