Road-line encroachment cannot be regularised where the approved layout prescribes a specific road width.

The petitioners had constructed a residence in “Chirag Row House,” Isanpur, Ahmedabad, allegedly encroaching upon the society’s road line.

They applied for regularisation under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022 (“GRUDA”) in 2022.

During the pendency of the application, the respondent-Corporation issued a removal notice dated 22 March 2024.

The application was rejected on 19 October 2024, and the petitioners’ statutory appeal was dismissed on 22 June 2026.

Residents of the society were joined as respondents Nos. 6 and 7 because they could be materially affected by any relief granted to the petitioners.

Whether the petitioners’ construction situated on the society’s road line could be regularised under Rule 8(4) of the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Rules, 2022, where the approved society layout prescribed a 7.5-metre approach road.

Whether the appellate authority’s reliance on objections and departmental opinions not supplied to the petitioners violated the principles of natural justice and required remand for fresh consideration.

Whether FAQs Nos. 64–66 issued under GRUDA entitled the petitioners to regularisation on the basis that a minimum road width of 4.5 metres would remain available.

The Court applied Rule 8(4) of the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Rules, 2022, which prohibits regularisation with respect to road width or the setback required under the CGDCR; permits regularisation where road width is not provided and maintained, subject to specified deduction from the plot; and allows relaxation of the prescribed road width only on the condition that the road does not become less than 4.50 metres wide.

The Court held that the provision applies where no specific road width is prescribed, and that the statutory Rule prevails in the event of any inconsistency with administrative FAQs.

It also applied the principles of natural justice concerning disclosure of adverse material, while observing that “negative equality” under Article 14 cannot compel the repetition of an erroneous benefit.

The Court found that the approved layout plan prescribed a 7.5-metre approach road for the society.

Since a specific road width was provided, the conditional relaxation mechanism under Rule 8(4)—including the minimum 4.5-metre safeguard—could not be invoked to regularise construction encroaching upon that road line.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ interpretation of FAQs Nos. 64–66, holding that they had to be read consistently with Rule 8(4) and could not override the Rule.

Although the Court acknowledged that the petitioners had not been furnished the private respondents’ objections and certain subsequent departmental opinions, it concluded that remand would serve no useful purpose because the petitioners’ case failed on the substantive interpretation of Rule 8(4).

The Court also rejected the claim of discriminatory treatment, noting that an erroneous benefit granted to another person does not create a right to similar treatment.

On the merits, the Court held that construction encroaching upon a road whose width was specifically prescribed as 7.5 metres in the approved layout could not be regularised under Rule 8(4).

The alleged procedural lapse did not warrant remand because the petitioners could not succeed on the substantive issue.

The challenge to the appellate order dated 22 June 2026 was therefore rejected, and the Special Civil Application was disposed of accordingly.