The Gujarat High Court recently upheld the demolition drive conducted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) at Chandola Lake, dismissing pleas from residents seeking a stay on further demolitions until rehabilitation measures are implemented. This decision has sparked significant debate, highlighting the tension between urban development, environmental conservation, and the rights of marginalized communities.
Chandola Lake, located in Ahmedabad, has historically been a vital water reservoir and ecological site. Over the years, the area surrounding the lake witnessed the emergence of settlements, primarily inhabited by economically weaker sections, including families who migrated from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal during the 1970s. These residents have lived in the area for decades, possessing documents such as ration cards, election IDs, and Aadhaar cards, asserting their legal residency.
The AMC initiated a large-scale demolition drive, targeting structures deemed illegal encroachments on government and lake land. The state government justified the operation by citing concerns over national security and public safety, alleging that the area had become a hub for illegal activities, including document forgery and harboring extremist elements. Notably, the government referenced the arrest of four Bangladeshi nationals linked to an Al-Qaeda module with suspected connections to the lake area as a serious national security concern.
Residents challenged the demolition in the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the drive was conducted without proper notice and violated their rights to shelter and livelihood. They contended that the demolitions were arbitrary and lacked adherence to due process, emphasizing their long-standing residence and possession of necessary identification documents.
Justice Mauna Bhatt, presiding over the case, acknowledged the residents' economic vulnerabilities but emphasized that unauthorized constructions on lake or government land could not be overlooked. The court noted the absence of any legal documentation justifying the constructions and reiterated that such structures are subject to removal under Section 37 of the Land Revenue Code. Consequently, the court refused to stay the demolition drive, stating that the petitioners' actions of constructing illegal and unauthorized structures could not be ignored.
However, the court provided a semblance of relief by allowing petitioners to approach the authorities with individual applications for rehabilitation under the government's policies from 2010 and 2013. This provision offers a pathway for affected residents to seek resettlement, albeit without halting the ongoing demolitions.
The situation at Chandola Lake is not isolated. In 2009, the Gujarat High Court criticized the state government for evicting 329 riot-affected families from the same area without prior rehabilitation plans. The court then emphasized the state's duty to provide shelter before eviction, highlighting the recurring issue of inadequate resettlement measures for displaced communities.
Environmental concerns also play a significant role in this scenario. Chandola Lake has suffered from pollution and encroachment over the years, with its feeder canal, Kharicut, choked with filth and garbage. The AMC has ambitious plans to develop the lake area, aiming to transform it into a public space akin to Kankaria Lake. This development agenda, while beneficial for urban planning, raises questions about the displacement of long-standing communities and the balance between ecological conservation and human habitation.
The Supreme Court has weighed in on similar matters, emphasizing that water bodies must remain protected and free from encroachments. In a related case, the apex court warned Gujarat authorities that if demolitions were carried out in contempt of court orders, they would be required to restore the demolished structures. This underscores the judiciary's stance on preserving ecological sites while ensuring that legal procedures are meticulously followed.
The Chandola Lake demolition drive exemplifies the complex interplay between environmental preservation, urban development, and the rights of marginalized populations. While the state's actions aim to reclaim and rejuvenate a vital ecological site, the approach raises concerns about due process, adequate notice, and the provision of alternative housing for displaced residents. As urban centers continue to evolve, it becomes imperative to devise strategies that harmoniously integrate development goals with social justice and environmental sustainability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.