Advertisement
In this episode of Prop Personalities, we sit down with Hars...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Welcome to Prop Personalities by Prop News Time - a podcast ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
Why does the same hotel brand operate multiple properties in...
The Morbi Municipal Corporation has withdrawn its demolition order for a slum settlement on Panchasar Road after around 115 residents approached the Gujarat High Court. Residents argued that they were not given a proper hearing and were not offered alternative housing before eviction notices were issued. The civic body had directed them to vacate within a short time under provisions of the GPMC Act. Following the court's intervention, the authority agreed to reconsider the matter and review documents submitted by residents before taking any further action.
The Morbi Municipal Corporation has withdrawn its order to demolish a slum settlement on Panchasar Road after residents approached the Gujarat High Court, challenging the action taken by the civic authority. The decision came after nearly 115 residents filed a petition stating that the demolition process did not follow proper procedure and ignored their long-standing occupation of the land. Advertisement
Residents informed the court that many families have been living in the area for several decades, and their presence was acknowledged by authorities even during the 1979 Machchhu floods. They also pointed out that they had been requesting regularisation of their settlement for years but had not received any clear response.
During a road-widening exercise carried out between 2020 and 2023, several residents cooperated with the administration and removed parts of their structures that fell within the proposed alignment. Despite this, fresh eviction notices were issued to them in the past week under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act by the junior town planner. The notices directed residents to vacate within a limited time, failing which demolition would be carried out.
The petitioners stated before the court that they were not given a fair opportunity to present their case or respond to the notices. They argued that the action violated principles of natural justice, as no proper hearing was conducted before issuing the final demolition order. Residents also highlighted that no alternative accommodation or rehabilitation plan was offered, even though such provisions are generally expected in cases involving long-settled communities.
During the hearing, the municipal commissioner informed the court that the demolition order would be withdrawn. The civic body also sought time to review representations submitted by the residents and to examine documents that indicate their long-term occupation. It was conveyed that a fresh decision would be taken after considering all relevant records.
The matter also reflects similar instances seen in other cities where courts have intervened in demolition drives due to procedural gaps. In earlier cases, courts have set aside such actions when authorities failed to provide adequate notice, did not allow residents to respond, or overlooked rehabilitation requirements.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
