Owners faced cancellation of regularisation and demolition notice for shops on own land
Owners of shops and a cellar in a commercial complex in Ahmedabad had extra ground-floor and parking-area construction regularised in 2015. The municipal authority cancelled the regularisation and issued a demolition notice. The Gujarat High Court on 22 June 2026 quashed both the cancellation order and the notice.
This page records what the cited court, tribunal and government records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The cancellation order and the demolition notice stand quashed and the 2015 regularisation revives.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the building stands on private land bearing Survey No.7449 of Town Planning Scheme No.4 at Rajpur-Hirpur, Maninagar, Ahmedabad, and the application sought regularisation of 83.16 sq metres on the ground floor plus 24.95 sq metres in parking area.
The High Court recorded that the Corporation regularised the construction on 12th October 2015 after fees, the present owners bought the shops and cellar by registered sale deeds in October 2016, and then leased shops to a bank.
The High Court recorded that the authority passed an order on 19th March 2018 cancelling the 2015 regularisation and issued a notice on 2nd April 2018 under Section 260(1)(a) threatening removal.
The High Court held that Section 8 only guides scrutiny under Section 6 and gives no power to review or recall a Section 6(3) regularisation order, so the cancellation was without jurisdiction.
What the record says
“The impugned order dated 19th March, 2018 passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, as well as the consequential notice dated 02nd April, 2018 issued under Section 260(1)(a) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, are hereby quashed and set aside.”
C/SCA/5539/2018, para 14 — read the full text
A peaceful economic act
The action targeted extra building on the owners' own private land, not encroachment on government or another person's land, with no victim or public-land issue.
What we could not confirm
Original date of the extra construction was not proved, only that it was regularised in 2015; purchase prices and lease details were not relied on for the listing.