Courts Update Gujarat High Court denounces misuse of recently-enacted Gujarat Land...

Gujarat High Court denounces misuse of recently-enacted Gujarat Land Grabbing Act, 2020

-

Gujrat Aug 26(ILNS): The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday denounced the misuse of the recently enacted Gujarat Land Grabbing Act, 2020 followed by the invocation of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act (PASA) in private property disputes.

A Single Bench comprised of Justice Paresh Upadhyay passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ramjibhai Nathubhai Charola, Ganguben W/O Dolubhai Bachubhai Manduriya Mukeshbhai Tajubhai Charola, & Sobhaben W/O Devrajbhai Kadabhai Vaghela.

Challenge in all these petitions is made to the identical but separate orders passed by the District Magistrate, Amreli, dated February 17, 2021, whereby the petitioners are treated as ‘property grabbers’ and are detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985.

The execution of the orders was suspended by the Court order dated March 18, 2021, and the petitioners were directed to be released, for the reasons recorded in the said order.

In pursuant to the order of the Court dated March 18, 2021, an affidavit in reply dated August 11, 2021, is filed on behalf of the detaining Authority – the incumbent, which is on record. Not only is there no justification to invoke PASA in private property disputes, but the action of the State is also further aggravated by the said reply.

“The above would show that the justification put forward by the State Authorities to resort to PASA is that, had that not been done the petitioners would have taken help of advocates for continuing illegal activities. If any citizen faces action from the State and if he resorts to the legal remedy available to him, and if the citizen is protected, any attempt to obstruct it, maybe viewed very seriously and even the option of initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, can also be explored”, the Court observed.

Having heard advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, including the affidavit in reply, the Court finds that the detaining authority has exercised the powers, treating the petitioners as ‘property grabbers’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.

The Court held that the distinction between ‘the law and order’ and ‘the public order’ needs to be kept in mind, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal.

The Court said that the order, on facts, fails on this test. The order, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside.

“It is noted that, in the grounds of the detention, the detaining authority has recorded to the effect that, according to him, the activities of the petitioner create a sense of alarm and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public at large, however on weighing this vis-a-vis the material on record, the Court finds that, the citation of such words is more in the nature of rituals rather than with any significance to the alleged activities of the petitioner. In totality, the order is unsustainable and needs to be quashed and set aside, the Court said.

The Court stated that it is noted that on the basis of one FIR, at least four detention orders are passed and two of them are ladies. The complainant resides in Mumbai. The enthusiasm on the part of the State Authorities to throw the weight of the State in favor of one of the contesting parties, in the matters of private property disputes, may lend the State in an embarrassing position one day.

Further, in property disputes – the financial stakes from both sides may be very high. This may also lead to the temptation to one of the parties, for soliciting help from the revenue and the police officers, for the considerations less known to law. These are the dangers that need to be kept in view by the Higher Authorities of the State.

The Court ordered that all petitions are allowed. The orders passed by the District Magistrate, Amreli dated February 17, 2021, are quashed and set aside. Since the petitioners were already ordered to be set at liberty by the earlier order of the Court, no further direction needs to be given in that regard./ILNS/AP/SNG

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

Bihar LJP MP Prince Raj booked for rape

New Delhi Sept 14(ILNS): Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) MP from Bihar's Samastipur Prince Raj has been booked...

Delhi High Court dismisses CBI plea challenging CAT order quashing charges against CBI officer

New Delhi Sept 14(ILNS): The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed the plea moved by the Central Bureau...

Supreme Court rejects Arcelor Mittal company plea against Gujarat HC order

New Delhi Sept 14(ILNS): The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS)...

Supreme Court dismisses plea with Rs 10,000 cost, seeking Rs 50 lakh ex-gratia from Centre for families of lawyers who died before 60

New Delhi Sept 14 (ILNS): The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition with Rs 10,000 cost, seeking...

Delhi High Court grants bail to 2 in connection with the murder of a policeman during the Delhi riots

New Delhi Sept 14(ILNS): The Delhi High Court, today, granted bail to Shahnawaz and Mohd Ayyub in...

Supreme Court says Gorakhpur girl’s marriage to Muslim man won’t stand if she is a minor

New Delhi Sept 14(ILNS): The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the marriage of the minor girl from...

Must read

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you