Occupants without rights cannot resist eviction under a sanctioned town-planning scheme.

The petitioners occupied dwelling units on land forming part of Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 40 (Limbayat–Dindoli), in the Harijan Vas area of Surat.

They challenged notices issued in connection with eviction under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, read with Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979, and sought, among other reliefs, alternative accommodation before eviction.

They claimed they had not known of the scheme or the opportunity to object because they were illiterate.

The Corporation responded that the scheme had been sanctioned and that the petitioners had not objected at the relevant stage.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ names did not appear in Form F and that, in a communication dated 17 May 2025, they had undertaken to vacate the land within eight days.

1. Whether the Court should quash the eviction-related notices and restrain implementation of the sanctioned town-planning scheme on the petitioners’ challenge.

2. Whether the petitioners’ claimed hardship justified directing the authorities to provide alternative accommodation before eviction.

The Court considered Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, read with Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979, as the statutory basis for the eviction notices in the context of implementing the town-planning scheme.

It treated the State-sanctioned scheme, the petitioners’ failure to raise objections at the relevant stage, and the absence of their names from Form F as material against their claim to continued occupation of the subject land.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the preliminary scheme had been sanctioned, the petitioners had not raised objections when required, and their names did not appear in Form F.

It also relied on their written undertaking to vacate within eight days, which it regarded as showing their awareness of the authorities’ action and their lack of a right to remain on the land.

The petitioners’ hardship argument, based on their lack of education and the consequences of eviction, did not persuade the Court to interfere.

It dismissed the petition and discharged the Rule, without an order as to costs.