Case Note & Summary
The case involves an intra-court appeal filed by Saiyed Arefabanu Ibrahimbhai Miya and others against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court. The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition challenging an order dated 13.05.2025 passed 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, 1976. The order directed the removal of encroachments from municipal land. The Single Judge granted the petitioners two months' time to vacate their premises and deliver peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent Corporation. The appellants, represented by Mr. Hashim Qureshi and Mr. Ekrama H Qureshi, argued that the order was erroneous and that they should not be evicted. The respondents, including the State of Gujarat and the Corporation, were represented by the Government Pleader and Mr. Anuj K Trivedi. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, heard the appeal. The Court noted that the respondent Corporation had no objection to the condonation of a 21-day delay in filing the appeal, and the delay was condoned. On merits, the Court found no substance in the appeal. The order under Section 68 was valid, and the appellants had no legal right to continue occupying the municipal land. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order and the directions for eviction within two months. The civil application for stay was also disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Encroachment - Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Removal of Encroachment - The appellants challenged the order dated 13.05.2025 passed under Section 68 of the Act, 1976 r/w Rule 33 of the Rules, which was upheld by the Single Judge. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the order was valid and the appellants had no right to continue occupying the municipal land. (Paras 1-3)
B) Condonation of Delay - Delay of 21 days - The respondent Corporation had no objection to the delay, and the delay was explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application was allowed. (Para Order in Civil Application)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 directing removal of encroachment was valid and whether the appellants were entitled to any further relief.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Single Judge dated 23.12.2025 is upheld. The appellants are directed to vacate the premises within two months as per the Single Judge's order. The civil application for stay is disposed of.
Law Points
- Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act
- 1976
- Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules
- Condonation of delay
- Intra-court appeal
- Encroachment on municipal land
Case Details
R/Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 893 of 2026 in R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 191 of 2026 in R/Special Civil Application No. 7378 of 2025
Mr. Hashim Qureshi, Mr. Ekrama H Qureshi, Government Pleader, Mr. Anuj K Trivedi
Saiyed Arefabanu Ibrahimbhai Miya & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-court appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging order under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 for removal of encroachment.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the order dated 13.05.2025 and the judgment of the Single Judge dated 23.12.2025, and to prevent their eviction from the premises.
Filing Reason
The appellants were aggrieved by the order under Section 68 of the Act, 1976 directing removal of encroachment and the Single Judge's dismissal of their writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 23.12.2025, granting two months' time to vacate. The order under Section 68 was passed on 13.05.2025.
Issues
Whether the order under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 was valid.
Whether the appellants were entitled to any further relief beyond the two-month period granted by the Single Judge.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants submitted that the order under Section 68 was erroneous and they should not be evicted.
The respondent Corporation had no objection to the condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The order under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 was valid, and the appellants had no legal right to continue occupying municipal land. The Single Judge's grant of two months' time to vacate was sufficient relief.
Judgment Excerpts
This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the challenge to the order dated 13.05.2025 passed under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 r/w Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, made thereunder, has been turned down.
While dismissing the writ petition, the writ Court has issued directions that two months’ time may be provided to the petitioners to vacate their respective premises and the petitioners would be liable to give peaceful and vacant possession of their respective premises to the respondent – Corporation.
Procedural History
The order under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 was passed on 13.05.2025. The appellants filed Special Civil Application No. 7378 of 2025 challenging the order, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 23.12.2025. The appellants then filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 191 of 2026 along with Civil Application for Condonation of Delay No. 893 of 2026 and Civil Application for Stay No. 1 of 2026. The Division Bench heard the matter on 20.02.2026 and dismissed the appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976: 68
- Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1976: 33
