By S.H. Iyer

Advocate

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND RIGHTS OF THE URBAN POOR IN INDIAN CITIES

A poor homeless person was sleeping in the premises of a court. The Marshal came and scolded him. He was asked to go away. The man who was woken up from his slumber said ‘I am prepared to leave this place, but tell me at which place I should sleep’. The Marshall had no answer to the query of the homeless person and no one in Government or in public bodies or those forming the affluent sections of the society have any answer to the question of the helpless homeless person. This is a tragic phenomena of poor, unemployed and homeless persons all over the world.

RIGHT TO SHELTER – DIVERSED VIEWS OF JUDICIARY

In various cases, the Supreme Court has enlarged the meaning of life under Article 21 of the Constitution to include within its ambit, the right to shelter. In some of the cases upholding the right to shelter, the Court looked at differentiating between a mere animal-like existence and a decent human existence, thereby bringing out the need for a respectable life.

1. Upholding the importance of the right to a decent environment and a reasonable accommodation, in Shantistar Builders Vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990) 1 SCC 520: AIR 1990 SC 630 the Court held that,

“The right to life would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation, which would allow him to grow in every aspect – physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fireproof accommodation.”

2. In Chameli Singh V. State of U.P.[(1996) 2 SCC 549 ] a Bench of three Judges of Supreme Court had considered and held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen and it was read into Article 21 of the Constitution of India as encompassing within its ambit, the right to shelter to make the right to life more meaningful. In para 8 it has been held thus: (SCC pp. 555-56)

“In any organized society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal need of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions, which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilized society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human rights.”

Emphasizing further on the right to shelter, the Court in this case held that,

“Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is however where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under an obligation to secure it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a democratic society as a member of the organized civic community one should have permanent shelter so as to a physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself into a cultural being. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrate the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equity, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself.”

3. In PC Gupta Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, in 1994, the Court went further holding that the Right to shelter in Article 19(1) (g) read with Articles 19(1) (e) and 21, included the right to residence and settlement. Protection of life guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses within its ambit the right to shelter to enjoy the meaningful right to life. The right to residence and settlement was seen as a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (e) and as a facet of inseparable meaningful right to life as available under Article 21.

4. In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Nagarpalika Vs. Nawabkhan Gulabkhan, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 121, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under.

“ The right to life enshrined under Article 21 includes meaningful right to life and not merely animal existence. Right to life would include right to live with human dignity. Right to life has been assured as a basic human right under Article 21. Due to want of facilities and opportunities, the right to residence and settlement is an illusion to the rural and urban poor. Articles 38, 39 and 46 mandate the State, as its economic policy, to provide socio-economic justice to minimize inequalities in income and in opportunities and status. It positively charges the state to distribute its largess to the weaker sections of the society envisaged in Article 46 to make socio-economic justice a reality, meaningful and fruitful so as to make life worth living with dignity of person and equality of status and to constantly improve excellence. Though no persons has a right to encroach and erect structures or otherwise on footpaths, pavements or public streets or any other place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose, the State has the Constitutional duty to provide adequate facilities and opportunities by distributing its wealth and resources for settlement of life and erection of shelter over their heads to make the right to life meaningful, effective and fruitful. Right to livelihood is meaningful because no one can live without means of his living, that is the means of livelihood. The deprivation of the right to life in that context would not only denude life of effective content and meaningfulness but it would make like miserable and impossible to live….”

“..Article 19(1) (e) accords right to residence and settlement in any part of India as a fundamental right. Right to life has been assured as a basic human right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family; it includes food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services. Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights lays down that State parties to the Covenant recognize that everyone has the right to standard of living for himself and his family including food, clothing, housing and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.”

5. In the case of OLGA TELLIS AND OTHERS VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION reported in (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 545 the Apex Court has concluded as under:

“..To summarize, we hold that no person has the right to encroach, by erecting a structure or otherwise, on footpaths, pavements or any other place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose like, for example, a garden or a playground; that he provision contained in Section 314 of he Bombay Municipal Corporation Act is not unreasonable in the circumstances of the case; and that, the Kamraj Nagar Basti is situated on an accessory road leading to the Western Express Highway. We have referred to the assurances given by the State Government in its pleadings here which, we repeat, must be made good. Stated briefly, pavement dwellers who were censused or who happened to be censused in 1976 should be given, though not as a condition precedent to their removal, alternate pitches at Malavani or, at such other convenient place as the Government considers reasonable but not farther away in terms of distance; slum dwellers who were given identity cards and whose dwellings were numbered in the 1976 census must be given alternate sites for their resettlement ; slums which have been in existence for a long time, say for twenty years or more, and which have been improved and developed will not be removed unless the land on which they stand or the appurtenant land, is required for a public purpose, in which case, alternate sites or accommodation will be provided to them; the Low income Scheme Shelter Programme” which is proposed to be undertaken with the aid of the World Bank will be pursued earnestly ; and, the Slum Upgradation Programme (SUP) ‘ under which basic amenities are to be given to slum dwellers will be implemented without delay in order to minimize the hardships involved in any eviction, we direct that the slums, wherever situated, will not be removed until one month after the end of the current monsoon season…..

6. While interpreting various provisions contained in the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 the Supreme Court in the case of Punnu Ram & others Vs Chiranjitlal Gupta and others, reported in (1999)-3-SCC-273, the Supreme Court held :

, “..Further, clause (b) of section 19(4) provides that before granting such permission, the competent authority should be satisfied whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas and if it is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas, then permission for eviction can be granted. In such cases also, a tenant would not be put to any hardship if he is evicted. The reason is, if there is a scheme of clearance of the slum area framed by the competent authority, then the policy of the enactment suggests that the slum-dwellers should not be evicted unless alternative accommodation to be made could be obtained for him, that if the buildings or the entire area is to be ordered to be demolished, in that event, the dwellers could, of course, have to vacate, but it was presumed that alternative accommodation would necessarily have to be provided before any such order is made. It is true that for some time alternative accommodation may not be provided to the tenant but it is required to be provided within a reasonable time. Eviction process and improvement or reconstruction process is required to be carried out in an orderly fashion if the purpose of the Act is to be fulfilled..”

6. Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union Vs Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 625, the Supreme Court has held:

“..The above authorities make it clear that the hawkers have a right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. This right, however, is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). Thus, hawking may not be permitted where e.g. due to narrowness of road, free flow of traffic or movement of pedestrians is hindered or where for security reasons an area is required to be kept free or near hospitals, places of worship etc. There is no fundamental right under Article 21 to carry on any hawking business. There is also no right to do hawking at any particular place.”

JUSTIFICATIONS BY AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF FORCED EVICTION::

1. In most of the cases the general stand almost consistently taken by and on behalf of the public authorities, i.e., the Municipal Corporations, Revenue authorities of the State, Urban Development Authorities and Housing Boards etc.is that the hutment dwellers are occupying lands, such as reserved for proposed roads under the housing schemes, on the banks of rain water channel, on public roads and other objectionable sites. They cannot be allowed to remain there, to the detriment of the general interest and convenience of other members of the society, who expect proper development of urban areas to ensure uncongested and unpolluted environment.

2. That planned development of cities for inhabitants is the need of the society. Individual or collective rights of hutment dwellers will have to be sacrificed for planned urban development, which is in general public interest.

3. That the hutment dwellers were duly served with notices reasonably in advance to give them time and period to vacate the encroached lands with their families and belongings. It is only when after such notices the hutment dwellers refused to vacate or leave the encroached lands, that minimum required physical force is used, to evict them.

4. That each and every encroacher of the land, where the encroachment is comparatively of recent origin, cannot be provided with alternative site to live, as it is not within the financial resources and capacity of the public bodies.

5. That no law or the Constitution recognizes any fundamental right to live by committing encroachment on public properties.

6. That the public authorities have taken action permissible under the relevant laws, such as, the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act and the Bombay Land Revenue Code and that under the provisions of the State enactments, the public authorities are empowered to remove encroachments on public land, for the purpose of fulfilling the objects of those enactments, namely, to regulate the municipal administration in cities, to make planned and systematic development of urban areas and to protect the public properties and lands for public use.

7. That the Constitution Bench decisions of Supreme Court in OLGA TELLIS AND OTHERS Vs. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS (AIR 1986 SC 180) AND AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. NAVABKHAN GULABKHAN AND OTHERS (AIR 1977 SC 152), permit the civic authorities to adopt the procedure followed in these cases for restoring possession of properties for public use, by removing illegal encroachments

JUDGEMENTS DISTINGUISHED:

While analyzing and distinguishing various judgements of the Supreme Court on the issue of Right to Shelter, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Peoples Union For Civil Liberties Vs State of Gujarat has made following observations:

* “..We are aware that law is heartless and therefore, it requires medium of mercy to implement it. We do not think that in balancing rights of individuals and society, we would be less kind and merciful towards the section, which justly deserves it.

* At the same time as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Navabkhan (supra), the needs of the general society of urban area cannot be disregarded while protecting the alleged violation of human rights of hutment and slum dweller. The following observations in Navabkhan’s case do not appear to us to be in any manner in conflict with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Olga Tellis’ case (supra):-

“It is true that in all cases it may not be necessary, as a condition for ejectment of the encroacher, that he should be provided with an alternative accommodation at the expenses of the State which is given due credence, is likely to result in abuse of the Judicial process. But no absolute principle of universal application would be laid in this behalf. Each case is required to be examined on the given set of facts and appropriate direction or remedy be evolved by the Court suitable to the facts of the case. Normally, the court may not, as a rule, directs that the encroacher should be provided with an alternative accommodation before ejectment when they encroached public properties, but, as stated earlier, each case requires examination and suitable direction appropriate to the facts requires modulation. Considered from this perspective, the apprehensions of the appellant is without force”.

* In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in ALMITRA H. PATEL AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2000) 2 SCC 679 dealing with disposal of solid waste for cleaning up Delhi to protect environment from pollution on large scale slum colonies coming up in cities like Delhi, the following observations keeping in view the societal needs came to the made :-

“Establishment or creating of slums, it seems appears to be good business and is well organize. The number of slum has multiplied in the last few years by geometrical proportion. Large area of public land, in this way, are usurped for private use free of cost. It is difficult to believe that this can happen in the capital of the country without passive or active connivance of the land-owning agencies and/or the municipal authorities. The promise of free land, at the taxpayer’s cost, in place of a jhuggi, is a proposal which attracts more land-grabbers. Rewarding an encroacher on public land with a free alternative site is like giving a reward to a pickpocket. The Department of Slum Clearance does not seem to have cleared any slum despite its being in existence for decades. In fact more and more slum are coming into existence. Instead of “slum clearance” there is “slum creation” in Delhi. This is turn gives rise to domestic waste being strewn on open land in and around the slums. This can best be controlled at least, in the first instance, by preventing the growth of slums. The authorities must realize that there is a limit to which the population of a city can be increased, without enlarging its size. In other words the density of population per square kilometer cannot be allowed to increase beyond the sustainable limit. Creation of slums resulting in increase in density has to be prevented. What the slum clearance department has to show, however, does not seem to be visible. It is the garbage and solid waste generated by these slums which require to be dealt with most expeditiously and on the basis of priority.”

* In granting, therefore, relief to homeless in cities and those compelled by circumstances and poverty to encroach on land for living in huts, a word of caution given by the Supreme Court in the case of Navabkhan (Supra0 an Almitra (Supra) have to be taken note of, lest such recognition of right of hutment dwellers to live would indirectly encourage encroachments by land grabbers who are part of land mafia operating in cities in the name of poor and needy.

* The Apex Court, in OLGA TELLIS case, pointed out in paragraph 28 as under :-

“Encroachment of public property undoubtedly obstructs and upsets planned development, ecology and sanitation. Public property needs to be preserved and protected. It is but the duty of the State and local bodies to ensure the same.

* In the case of OLGA TELLIS, the Apex Court has pointed out that no one has a right to encroach upon public footpaths, pavements on roads, State/Municipal Corporation has constitutional as well as statutory duty to provide residential accommodation to the poor and indigent weaker sections of the society by utilizing the excess urban vacant land available under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. The Apex Court further held that in all cases of ejectment of the encroachers, it is not obligatory on the part of the State/ Corporation to provide alternative accommodation, no absolute principle can be laid down in this regard and it would depend upon facts of each case.

* In the case of INDRA SAWHNEY vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in 1992 SUPP (3) SCC 217, the Apex Court has clarified that the expression “weaker sections” of the people is wider than the expression “backward class” of citizens, which is only a part of the weaker sections. Backward classes comprise only those which are socially or economically backward. The term weaker sections does not necessarily refer to a group or a class. It connotes all sections of the society which are rendered weaker due to various causes, e.g. poverty, natural calamity or physical handicap. The State has other duties in view of this provision. One thing is certain; so far as right to work, to education an to public assistance in cases of unemployment are concerned, Article 41 refers to limits of its economic capacity. Therefore, while securing right to work, to education and to public assistance, economic capacity is required to be considered.

* It is also necessary to refer to paragraph 9 of the Apex Court’s judgment in the case o NAWABKHAN (supra), which reads as under :

“The Constitution does not put an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty but such a deprivation must be according to the procedure, in the given circumstances, fair and reasonable. … … inflexible rule of hearing and due application of mind can be insisted upon in every or all cases. Each case depends upon its own backdrop. The removal of encroachment needs urgent action. Sooner the encroachment is removed when sighted, better would be the facilities or convenience for passing or re-passing of the pedestrians on the pavements or foot-paths facilitating free flow of regulated traffic on the road or use of public places. On the contrary, the longer the delay, the greater will be the danger of permitting the encroachers claming semblance of right to obstruct removal of the encroachment. If the encroachment is of a recent origin the need to follow the procedure of principle of natural justice could be obviated in that on one has a right to encroach upon the public property an claim the procedure of opportunity of hearing which would be a tedious and time-consuming process leading to putting a premium for high-handed and unauthorized acts of encroachment and unlawful squatting. On the other hand, if the corporation allows settlement of encroachers for a long time for reasons best known to them, and reasons are not far to see, then necessarily a modicum of reasonable notice for removal, say two weeks or 10 days, and personal service on the encroachers on substitute service by fixing notice on the property is necessary. If the encroachment is not removed within the specified time, the competent authority would be at liberty to have it removed. That would meet the fairness of procedure an principle of giving opportunity to remove the encroachment voluntarily by the encroacher. On their resistance, necessarily appropriate an reasonable force can be used to have the encroachment removed. Thus considered, we hold that the action taken by the appellant-corporation is not violative of the principal of natural justice.”

Before expressing opinion in paragraph 9, the Apex Court pointed out in paragraph 7 as under :-

“It is for the court to decide in exercise of its constitutional power of judicial review whether the deprivation of life or personal liberty in a give case is by procedure which is reasonable, fair and just or it is otherwise. Footpath, street or pavement are public property which are intended to serve the convenience of general public. They are not laid for private use indeed, their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they carved out from portions of public roads…. No one has a right to make use of a public property for the private purpose without the requisite authorization from the competent authority. It would, therefore, be but the duty of the competent authority to remove encroachments on the pavement or footpath of the public street obstructing free flow of traffic or passing or re-passing by the pedestrians.”

Thus, it is clear that no one has a right to make use of public property for private purposes.”

LATEST VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT :

Sending a shock wave to the slum dwellers, the bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Ruma Pal and Markanday Katju made it loud and clear that encroachers have no right whatsoever on public land, nor even for a minute. Allowing demolition of slum clusters of Nagli Machi near Pragati Maidan in New Delhi, the bench turned down the poverty plea. “Desperation does not mean they can do something illegal by encroaching public land” said the bench. (As reported in the Times of India, Ahmedabad edition dated 10-5-2006)

RELIGIOUS STRUCTURES – Encroachment

Following the recent incident of demolition of Dargah by the civic authorities in vadodara city, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court, based on the report published in the Times of India, initiated suo-motu writ petition and made following observations in its order:

“..Encroachment made on the public road by any one cannot be permitted or tolerated even for a minute as it causes lot of traffic problems as well as other problems for the public at large. Only few handful anti-social elements with the money and muscles power put up religious structures overnight on public space and then start minting money by putting public to a great inconvenience. It is unfortunate that the officers of the Corporation or Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (for short “AUDA”) contribute to it by remaining as silent spectators. They failed to discharge their duties in not removing such structures for a long time or preventing such structures coming up on public space overnight. Such persons causing great inconvenience to the public at large should be strictly dealt with by the authorities by demolishing such structures put on by them on public space at the earliest. Wherever there is encroachment causing traffic problems and other serious problems to the public at large, it should be removed zone-wise or phase-wise.

From the incident, which took place yesterday at Vadodara while carrying out demolition drive, all the authorities have to learn lessons. There should be full coordination between all the authorities including police before carrying out such demolition drive. They must see to it that while carrying out such demolition drive public peace is not disturbed by some handful anti-social elements, who are against the development and progress of the state of Gujarat. If required, they may be even booked before carrying out such demolition drive, as they are simply land grabbers.

SLUM POLICY OF THE STATE:

The Urban Development & Urban Housing Department of the Government of Gujarat has framed a draft of Gujarat State Urban Slum Policy and this policy is under consideration of the Government. The policy contemplates as under:

* ‘In-situ’ upgradation will be preferred to relocation. All efforts will be made by ULBs to upgrade the slums at the same sites.

* Layout Planning: Where in-situ up-gradation projects are taken up, proper Layout Planning including plot re-alignment and equalization of land may be undertaken as necessary in consultation with local residents.

* All relocation processes will be carried out in consultation with the affected slum dwellers, keeping in mind the distance from workplace and other livelihood facilities and after the State Government considers such re-location as unavoidable.

* Re-location will be carried out wherever necessary, when in-situ upgradation is not possible for a few hutments which need to be removed from their present locations because of widening of internal streets or making provision for community hall and community open space.

* Relocation may also be considered in rare situations where slums are situated on expensive plots that could be commercially developed to raise finance. In such cases, the slum dwellers will be relocated to the interior areas so that the frontage is available for commercial development.

* In case where slums are ineligible for upgradation at the existing location. The ULB may consider relocating the slum dwellers from the existing ineligible sites in consultation with slum dwellers.

• Where slum dwellers are to be re-located, they will be given shifting assistance of Rs. 1000 and alternate site within 2 km from their original site and their choker.”

RESOLVE OF AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:

While passing the budget for the year 2004-05, the Congress as well as VJP Corporators of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation unanimously passed the following resolution:

“RESOLVED THAT vide Municipal Corporation Resolution No. 26 dated 9-2-1976 and Municipal Corporation Resolution No.544 dated 17-8-1976, it was decided that the hutments situated within the limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of which survey was carried out prior to 1976 and were registered, such hutments should not be demolished without providing alternative facility. By Standing Committee Resolution No. 1274 dtd. 7-2-2005 of Budget Resolution No.4 for the year 2005-06 it is decided that the hutments dwellers for the period upto December 1995 shall not be evicted without providing alternative accommodation and survey of the hutments for the period upto December 2001 shall be carried out…..

The resolution has been strongly opposed by the Municipal Commissioner vide his letter dated 5-1-2006 addressed to the Government of Gujarat on the ground that (1) implementation of the resolution would invite additional financial burden (2) More land will be required for making allotment to the slum dwellers (3) it would encourage illegal encroachers (4) allotment of land to the private parties would be hampered.

Forced Evictions in Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad is a business center and forty percent of the inhabitants are poor. In recent times the increasing incidents of communal violence has led to a sharp polarization of the Hindus and Muslims. The Sabarmati River has divided the city into the newly developed western and the older eastern city. In recent times the city has expanded on the western side.. The city’s slums began mushrooming after the growth of textile industries. Most of these established slums are located in the industrial zones in the eastern parts.

During the 1950s and 1960s there were large-scale evictions by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation but in the early 1970s the strategy was altered focusing on improving the health and environment of slums. Most slums have no toilets and even lack electricity. 84 percent use drinking water from community standpipes generally catering to 20 to 25 households. Slums without tenure rights are denied necessary services.

Since 1950s, urban growth largely took place in the eastern part of the city and, particularly, the western urban peripheries. The occupation of marginal areas is the only available housing option for economically weaker urban groups.

Eastern Ahmedabad has about 44 per cent of the total housing units in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) region, with 54.8 per cent of the total dwelling units in the category of chawls and slums. It accounts for 75 per cent of the chawl units and 47 per cent of the slum units in the city.

The percentage of Ahmedabad housing categorized as slums increased from 17.2 per cent in 1961 to 22.8 percent in 1971 and 25.6 per cent in 1991. It is estimated that 17.1 per cent of Ahmedabad’s population lived in slums in 1971. This rose to an estimated 21.4 per cent in 1982. The last estimate, based on a population census for the year 1991, indicates that 40 per cent of households lived in slums and chawls. (Source: UN-Habitat (2003), The Challenge of Slums, Earthscan, London; Part IV: ‘Summary of City Case Studies’, pp195-228.)

In Ahmedabad city the first Integrated Urban Development Project (IUDP) was initiated after the flood of 1973. This project affected nearly 300 families living on the banks of the Sabarmati. The plan was to develop a low cost housing colony on a plot of 43 acres. The project failed because the relocation area was situated far away from the core area of the city. In 1984 a new slum up-gradation programme was initiated under urban development programme of the World Bank. However, the programme failed due to the weak financial position of the Ahmedabad Municipal Commission. As a result the programme was abandoned in 1992. In 1990, the Department of International Development DFID, UK started a project to cover nearly 400,000 people living in 183 slum locations.

In 2004, the Gujarat government had apprised a top-level World Bank team led by its country director Michael Carter about the state’s desire for a comprehensive slum upgradation plan for the city. The World Bank team visited several slum areas of Ahmedabad, the state and WB are working out a policy to transfer the land titles to private owners and remove the slum dwellers from their original place.

Sabarmati Riverfront Development Project

The slumdwellers in Ahmedabad are facing huge eviction. At the banks of Sabarmati beautification program, called the Sabarmati Riverfront Development Project, has already started. The aim of the project is to grab the urban space presently being used by the poor inhabitants for commercial use. Some forty thousand families are likely to be displaced, of whom 80 percent are Muslims and the rest are members of Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Caste (Dalits).

The Sabarmati River Front Development Corporation Ltd. (SRFDCL) was registered on 28th May 1997. The main objective of SRFDCL is to undertake business promotions for building commercial complexes, markets, hotels, motels, cinema houses, farm houses, water resorts, canals, fountains and showers on the Sabarmati riverfront.

The project is clearly anti-poor as it alters the present land-use pattern by grabbing land from the poor and illegally transferring it to Powerful Business Interest Groups (PBiGs) for spinning money out of the valuable land, which the poor have inhabited for years. The SRFDCL project will also drain out all the water resources in spite of acute water scarcity in the region. Grabbing the riverside land from the poor has been the core dream of the SRFDCL.

Major eviction threats in the city

10,000 households will be evicted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation through 11 Town Planning Schemes.

40,000 families on the banks of Sabarmati river are vulnerable to displacement.

Slums threatened with evictions due to TP schemes:

Cluster area No. of slums affected

1) Vatwa 03

2) Danilimada 42

3) Gomatipur 05

4) Bapunagar 02

5) Naroda 02

6) Juhapura/Gupatanagar 04

7) Dariyapur/Chamanpura 03

The Town Planning Schemes are engaged in:

Broadening of roads

Lake beautification

Circular Sardar Patel ring road

132 feet wide inner ring road

Forced evictions

No. Year Name of slum Area No. of families Relocation

1 2003 Salatnagar Gomatipur 240 No settl.

2 2003 Lakodi Talab Old lakh 200 No. settl.

3 2003 Bhojabhai Juhapura 100 No. settl.

no bhatto

4 2004 Gulbai Takera Navrangpura 600 Odhav

5 2004 Devji Pura Sahibag 380

6 2005 Lakodi Talab 200

7 2005 Mahakali Danilimada 100 No. settl.

8 2005 Mangaltalavdi Vashna 250 No. settl.

9 2005 Chandranagar Vashna 80 No. settl.

10 2005 Tarwadichalli Chamanpura 70 No. settl.

11 2005 Civil hosp. Chapara Meghaninagar 265 No. settl.

12 2005 Bakaramundi Ranip 150 No. settl.

13 2005 Door darshan Driving road 150 Thaltej village

Chapara Thaltej

11 2005 Kadi-Kalol Mehsana 265 No. settl.

12 2005 Himmatnagar Himmatnagar 150 No. settl.

13 2005 Vyara Surat 400 No. settl.

• Gulbai Takera : 600 huts were demolished in November 2004 and the families have been relocated 20 kilometers away out of the city at a place named Odhav. Gulbai Tekra is located near Indira Nagar.

• Devji Pura Sahibag : Around 380 huts was demolished in December 2004. The land was acquired to build a post office and a police station. No alternative accommodation was provided to the evicted victims.

• Mahakali Danilimbada : Around 100 families’ houses were demolished for broadening the road and laying a pipeline, but due to intervention by Jan Sangharsh Manch, the High Court has stayed eviction.. Presently the families are living in the same locality. Similarly in January 2004 Ambika Bridge area houses were demolished but the people have got stay order from the court.

• Lakhoti Talav : There is a threat of eviction as 200 families are staying in this locality.

• Vastrapur Lake : 200 families were forcefully evicted to beautify the lake area in December 2003 and no alternative habitat has been provided to the victims.

Bapu Nagar Basti

In Bapu Nagar Muslim communities have been staying for the last 18 to 20 years. The Municipality wants to evict the community on the pretext of making a vegetable market. Around 38 families are staying here.

Relocation sites

Like other cities Ahmedabad’s relocation sites are like dumping grounds, which are on the outskirts of the city periphery. Odhav relocation site is 20 kilometers away, Ahmedabad Urban Development Association had built around 1500 housing units in a four storeyed complex in 2000-2001. Since this rehabilitation scheme was started around 400 families have been relocated there and are residing in one-room apartments. Odhav is one of the industrial areas outside the city.

Vejalpur is seven kilometers away from the city and around 100 housing units have been built there. This is also a four-storeyed complex. Most of the occupants are from Bodakdev basti and had been evicted in 2004.

Vatwa rehabilitation site is 30 kilometer away and another named Nikol rehabilitation site is 35 kilometer away from the city.

Legal interventions by Jan Sangharsh Manch/HRLN Ahmedabad:

Ahmedabad based civil rights organization in association with Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) Ahmedabad, has filed several Public Interest Litigations ( PIL) in the Gujarat High Court challenging illegal evictions of hutments in Salatnagar, Chandranagar, Asarwa, Meghaninagar, Danilimda, Vasna, Odhav, Adalaj areas of Ahmedabad and Indiranagar of Kalol town, and Ganeshnagar, Shashtrinagar, Bhathujinagar, Bhimnath and Jamwad localities of Vadodara. Through these PILs petitioners have sought relief to provide for alternative living space for those who have been evicted.

The Gujarat High Court has stayed the eviction of hutment dwellers at above places

Conclusions :

1. Slums are as much a result of the flawed economic policies of the State as it is of the social structure of Indian Society as it is also of the inequitable distribution of urban lands. The policy of slum evictions needs to be stopped and more viable and constitution-friendly solution need to be envisaged.

2. All forcible evictions and demolitions of the homes of slum dwellers are the worst violation of human rights as per all the international human rights commitments. It is not only a violation of right to shelter but also violation of all the rights – right to food, right to livelihood, right to health, right to education and above all the right to human dignity.

3. The notion of any cut-off date is ultra-vires to the Constitution of India.

Presented by S.H. Iyer – on behalf of JANHIT (Jan Sangharsh Manch and Human Rights Law Network), 5B Sushilnagar Society, Opp.Gandhi Labour Institute, Near Octroi Naka, Drive-In Road, Ahmedabad-380 052. Tel : (079)27475815.