Gaushala in Chotila demolished despite Gujarat High Court stay; officials face stern reprimand

Despite a Gujarat High Court order directing maintenance of status quo, a gaushala near the Navgrah Temple in Chotila, Surendranagar district, was allegedly demolished overnight, prompting sharp judicial criticism and the threat of disciplinary action against senior revenue officials.

Justice Niral R Mehta, taking serious note of the demolition, on Tuesday strongly reprimanded the concerned Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector H T Makwana. The court observed that the action appeared to have been carried out in clear disregard of its order, as well as an assurance given to the court that no demolition would take place.

High Court questions demolition despite status quo order

The high court questioned how the decision to demolish the gaushala was taken when a status quo order was in force. It also asked the officials how many years of service they had remaining, underscoring the seriousness with which the court viewed the matter.

Expressing strong displeasure, the court said that despite an explicit judicial direction and an undertaking before the bench, the officers had misused their authority and disregarded court proceedings. At one stage, the court warned that both officials could face suspension from service.

Justice Mehta observed that the gaushala had been demolished without following due legal process and that such conduct would have consequences. He directly questioned the Mamlatdar on how the demolition was ordered, warning him about the gravity of continuing in government service after such actions.

Court flags possible concealment and misuse of authority

The high court further noted that the demolition was carried out without informing the court or taking it into confidence. It remarked that not only was the demolition allegedly illegal, but there also appeared to be attempts to conceal the action.

The bench warned that the officials could face suspension, disciplinary action and departmental proceedings. A complete explanation was sought from both officers, with the court indicating that a formal inquiry would be ordered if their responses were found unsatisfactory.

Petitioner cites assurances and demolition video

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner trust, counsel informed the court that the Deputy Collector had assured the trust that no action would be taken in view of the High Court’s directions. Despite this, the gaushala was demolished.

 A video of the demolition has since surfaced, showing the structure being razed with a JCB machine. The petitioner relied on the video to support the claim that the action was carried out after the court’s status quo order.

Allegations against Deputy Collector raised in court

It was also alleged before the court that the Deputy Collector often boasts about his actions, claiming to be carrying out government work by taking the law into his own hands. The petitioner further alleged that the officer plays songs from the film Singham when stepping out of his vehicle to assert authority.

While recording these submissions, the court continued to question both officers closely. During the hearing, it emerged that the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector had allegedly attempted to suppress material facts relating to the gaushala demolition. Under Justice Mehta’s questioning, both officials reportedly appeared visibly uncomfortable.

Dispute over demolition order and notice to trust

The petitioner pointed out that while the authorities relied on a demolition order dated November 24, 2025, the trust was never served with this order. According to the petitioner, the trust received a notice only on January 17, sent through ordinary post, after court proceedings had already begun.

 Based on the postal department’s date stamp, the petitioner argued that procedural details appeared to have been manipulated to support the administration’s version of events, raising serious concerns about misuse of court procedure.

 The High Court questioned the officials on when the demolition order was actually passed. The Mamlatdar stated that it was issued on November 24. When the court asked why an order bearing a 2026 date was being shown, the Mamlatdar claimed it was due to a clerical error.

 Rejecting this explanation, the court observed that issuing undated or improper demolition orders, and acting without following legal proceedings, clearly pointed to wrongdoing. Justice Mehta concluded that the officials would inevitably have to face the consequences of their actions.