“The Purvala Doctrine” – Gujarat High Court Affirms Zero-Tolerance for Unauthorized Constructions within 300 m of Protected Monuments

1. Introduction

Mohmmad Sarifvisad Purvala & Ors. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Gujarat High Court, Oral Judgment dated 24 July 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Mauna M. Bhatt

The petitioners—about 250–300 low-income occupants of “Shana Apartment” (formerly “Rangwala Chali”) in Jamalpur, Ahmedabad—approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking:

Quashing of eviction/demolition notices dated 11 Jan 2021 issued under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (GPMC Act);
Recognition of a legal right to adequate housing and secure tenure under the Constitution and Article 11 of the ICESCR; and
Protection pending the petitioners’ attempt to regularise the building under the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2022 (GRUDA 2022) and an application made by the developer to the National Monument Authority (NMA) under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act).

Respondents—the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) and police authorities—asserted that the 18-storey structure was erected illegally, in blatant defiance of repeated stop-work, sealing and demolition orders, and lay within 300 metres (actual 187.19 m) of an ASI-protected monument, a statutorily prohibited zone for fresh construction.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Mauna M. Bhatt dismissed all four writ petitions (and accompanying civil applications) in limine, holding that:

The construction was undeniably unauthorised, raised despite consecutive notices under ss. 260 and 267 GPMC Act and three separate sealing orders.
Under s. 8(2)(f) GRUDA 2022, any unauthorised development within 300 m of a protected monument is non-regularisable; therefore the Corporation rightly refused the petitioners’ regularisation application.
Pendency of an appeal under GRUDA 2022 or of the developer’s belated NMA application does not create any interim immunity.
The petitioners, having consciously purchased/occupied units despite repeated statutory warnings, cannot invoke fundamental/human-rights rhetoric to perpetuate an illegality. Granting relief would amount to “misplaced sympathy”.
No further time for vacating the premises was warranted; the alternative prayer for a three-month grace period was also rejected.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121 – cited by petitioners on natural-justice grounds, but distinguished because adequate opportunity and several notices were, in fact, given here.
KAACHNI MASJID TRUST v. STATE OF GUJARAT, SCA No. 410/2025 – relied on by AMC; emphasises strict compliance with planning laws for heritage zones.
Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 995 – Supreme Court’s recent reiteration that courts must deal with unauthorised constructions with an “iron hand”; leniency equals erosion of rule of law. The High Court imported this ratio almost verbatim.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Multiple Statutory Regimes Synchronised
The Court harmonised three legislations:
1. GPMC Act – authorises stoppage, sealing and demolition of unauthorised structures (ss. 260, 267).
2. GRUDA 2022 – offers one-time regularisation but carves out absolute prohibitions under s. 8(2). Sub-clause (f) allows the State to notify further non-regularisable categories, and protected-monument zones stand notified.
3. AMASR Act – ss. 19, 20B, 20C create a 100 m “prohibited” and 200 m “regulated” zone around ASI-notified monuments. No construction permitted without prior NMA consent.
Because no prior NMA permission existed, the construction was void ab initio; GRUDA could not legitimise it post-facto.
Mens rea / Knowledge Irrelevant
Petitioners’ plea that the developer “cheated” them was rejected: statutory obligations run with the land; purchasers must conduct due diligence. The Court placed greater weight on public-law compliance than on private equities.
Right to Housing is Not a Licence to Violate Planning Law
While acknowledging socio-economic rights, the Court held that “a citizen who has no regard for the law cannot seek shelter under those very laws.” Olga Tellis jurisprudence was implicitly distinguished: unlike pavement dwellers, the petitioners were not merely homeless informal settlers but active participants in an illegal high-rise venture.
Doctrine of “Misplaced Sympathy”
Building upon Kaniz Ahmed, the Court coined a localised caution: any judicial indulgence would corrode public-confidence in the rule of law, hence misplaced sympathy must be eschewed.

3.3 Potential Impact

The decision crystallises what may now be styled the “Purvala Doctrine”:

“Structures erected within the 300-metre protected-monument belt, without prior NMA consent, are non-regularisable under s. 8(2)(f) GRUDA 2022; pendency of statutory appeals or post-facto applications cannot stall demolition, and Courts will refuse even temporary indulgence.”

Urban-Heritage Conservation: Local bodies get judicial reinforcement to act decisively against heritage-zone violations.
Real-Estate Due Diligence: Purchasers, lenders and insurers will have to scrutinise monument-zone restrictions before transacting.
Litigation Strategy: Writ petitions alleging “human-rights” defences against demolition are less likely to succeed where a statutory bar under GRUDA 2022 exists.
Regulatory Consistency: The judgment harmonises municipal, state regularisation and central heritage statutes, providing a template for other High Courts.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

GRUDA 2022: A Gujarat statute allowing one-time regularisation of certain illegal constructions on payment of a fee, but expressly excluding sensitive categories through s. 8(2).
Section 8(2)(f): The “exclusion clause” enabling the State to prescribe situations where no regularisation can be granted (e.g., constructions near monuments, on encroached public land, on high-tension corridors, etc.).
AMASR Act, 1958: Central law protecting heritage sites. It creates concentric zones: 0–100 m (prohibited) and 100–300 m (regulated), both requiring NMA permits.
Notice under s. 260 GPMC Act: A “show-cause” notice requiring the owner or occupier to justify unauthorised work; followed by an order to demolish if unsatisfactory.
Sealing Order: A physical closure of premises to prevent occupation or continuation of work.

5. Conclusion

Justice Mauna M. Bhatt’s ruling fortifies a hard-line stance against unauthorised development, particularly within heritage-sensitive zones. The Court foregrounded statutory purpose over equitable pleas and clarified that socio-economic rights cannot override explicit legislative prohibitions. By dovetailing the GPMC Act, GRUDA 2022 and AMASR Act, the judgment sets a clear precedent: illicit constructions in monument belts are ipso facto doomed, and litigative delay tactics will find no refuge in writ jurisdiction. The “Purvala Doctrine” thus emerges as a powerful deterrent—and a blueprint for municipal governance across India.