In April and May 2025, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) demolished over 12,000 illegal structures, including mosques and huts, around Chandola Lake in Danilimda to reclaim 3.5 lakh square meters of encroached government land.

The demolition drive was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, launched on 29 April 2025, over 3,000 illegal structures were cleared to reclaim nearly one lakh square meters of government land. In the second phase, launched on 20 May 2025, over 8,500 illegal structures were razed down to clear 2.5 lakh square meters of land.

The state government hailed the move as a bold strike against "anti-national elements," claiming that the area harboured illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.

Ahead of the first phase of demolition drive, 18 petitioners knocked the doors of the Gujarat High Court seeking an urgent hearing to bring a stay on the massive demolition drive at Ahmedabad’s Chandola Lake on 29 April. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition filed by residents of Siasat Nagar in Ahmedabad’s Chandola Lake area, who had sought a stay on an ongoing demolition drive by the state government. The court relied heavily on recent Supreme Court rulings and emphasised that the structures in question were unauthorised constructions on a notified water body. The demolition, the state government said, was linked to national security concerns following the recent terror attack in Pahalgam.

The petitioners had argued that they had been living in the area for decades, some for over decades, and claimed that the demolitions were carried out without any prior notice, violating their rights under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. They also sought rehabilitation under the Gujarat government's Resettlement and Rehabilitation policies of 2010 and 2013, which they said entitled them to alternate housing.

Speaking to The Indian Express, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, who is party to the state affidavit submitted in the court, said, “We have submitted that it is in the wake of the Pahalgam incident, it was a matter of national security and people’s safety… A lot of anti-social activities are going on in the (Chandola) area. These people are illegal (Bangladeshi) immigrants, who have occupied the area. It was not a simple anti-encroachment drive, in which case, it could have been done earlier by the civic body. There was sensitive information for which we wanted to be doubly sure… Public safety and security are paramount. Therefore, the expedition was undertaken. Our reply mentioned that it was an issue of national security and dealing with illegal immigrants.” The government's affidavit further stated that four Bangladeshi immigrants with links to an Al Qaeda module connected to the lake area were recently arrested.

The government maintained that no civic authority had ever given development permission in the area and that no legal structure existed. It also questioned the very existence of the petitioners, stating that police were unable to verify or locate several of them and that the addresses given were incomplete or unverifiable.

Rejecting the petition, Justice Mauna Bhatt said that halting the demolition would “amount to perpetuating illegal occupation and construction”. The court emphasised that Chandola Lake is “admittedly a notified water body” and reiterated the Supreme Court’s 2024 position that unauthorised structures on public land or water bodies cannot be protected, regardless of the duration of occupation or money spent on construction.

On 24 July 2025, the Gujarat High Court rejected other similar petitions challenging the demolition drives.

Regarding the petitioners’ claim to rehabilitation under Article 21, the court noted that while the right to life includes the right to shelter, it does not guarantee resettlement on land that is government-owned or classified as a water body. The petitioners, it ruled, could not claim a vested right to remain on such land.

The court also rejected the petitioners’ demand for further measurement or demarcation to determine whether the land is indeed a part of the lake. “It is not disputed that Chandola Lake is a water body and on a water body, no construction can be permitted,” the order stated.

While dismissing the plea, the court did leave a small window open, allowing individual petitioners to submit applications to the authorities under the 2010 and 2013 resettlement schemes. Such applications, the court said, “may be considered in accordance with law.” The court granted Advocate Yagnik time to file a rejoinder to the state’s affidavit, though it did not stay the demolitions.