Long Possession Does Not Create Ownership Rights: Gujarat HC Upholds Encroachment Removal Notice

The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging a notice directing removal of an alleged encroachment on a public footpath in Ahmedabad, holding that long possession of property does not create ownership rights and that encroachments on public pathways cannot be protected under writ jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Mauna M. Bhatt rejected a Special Civil Application filed by Ranjana Mulchandbhai Shitlani, who had sought to quash a notice dated November 20, 2025, issued for removal of encroachment within 15 days at Krushnanagar area in Naroda, Ahmedabad.

The petitioner claimed rights over the premises on the basis of a Power of Attorney and argued that she had been in possession of the property for several years. It was contended that she regularly paid municipal taxes and other charges, and therefore was entitled to raise construction at the site. The petitioner further alleged that the eviction notice was issued without following the procedure contemplated under the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 and in breach of principles of natural justice.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel submitted that the original allottee of the property had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner and that she had been managing and maintaining the property since then. It was also argued that the petitioner had already filed a reply to the impugned notice and should not be dispossessed without due process of law.

The Gujarat Housing Board and the other respondents strongly opposed the petition, raising a preliminary objection regarding the petitioner’s locus standi. The respondents submitted that the notice dated November 20, 2025 was not issued to the petitioner at all, but to the original allottee of the property, whose name appeared on the notice. According to the respondents, the petitioner’s name had been added only in handwriting and did not confer any legal right to challenge the notice.

The respondents also informed the court that the original allottee had already consented to redevelopment in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961. They further pointed out that the encroachment in question was clearly on a public footpath and that photographs placed on record demonstrated the illegal occupation.

Another significant submission made on behalf of the respondents was that the Power of Attorney relied upon by the petitioner was not executed by the original allottee of the property, but by a third party. On this basis, it was argued that the petitioner could not claim any ownership or legal right over the premises.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court held that mere long possession of a property does not create ownership rights in favour of a person. Court observed that the petitioner had failed to establish that she was the owner of the subject premises.

The bench further clarified that disputes relating to title of property cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the court said, is not meant to determine ownership rights, particularly when the petitioner herself is unable to show valid title.

Court also addressed the argument regarding the issuance of the notice, observing that the contention that the notice was not issued to the petitioner actually went against her case. Court held that the petitioner, being an encroacher, had been rightly directed to remove the encroachment from the public footpath.

Finding no illegality in the notice dated November 20, 2025, the High Court concluded that the petition lacked merit. Accordingly, the Special Civil Application was dismissed, and the notice directing removal of encroachment was allowed to stand.

Case Title: RANJANA MULCHANDBHAI SHITLANI vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD & ORS.

Order Date: December 8, 2025

Bench: Justice Mauna M. Bhatt