Gujarat High Court
Ahmadbhai Allarakha Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 08/08/2025
Pronounced On : 21/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 21965 of 2021
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21965 of 2021
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21965 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AHMADBHAI ALLARAKHA PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE for MR MR ISA HAKIM(10874) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAV C THAKKAR(2206) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No. - 11191048212154 registered with Sarkhej Police Station for the offences punishable under Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined Sections 6D of the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Movable Property and provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 (in short "Act of 1991) as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The complainant is a businessman as well as a visiting faculty at a college. He independently and exclusively owned a plot of land with an area of 8030 sq.m., bearing Survey No. 43/1/P/1, located at Mouje Okhaf Sim, Taluka-City, District-
Ahmedabad (in short "disputed land"). The aforementioned land was registered in the name of Harish Ambalal Sheth - father of the complainant. After death of Harishbhai on 07/01/2006, complainant's name was legally entered into the revenue records of the disputed land vide entry no. 2586 dated 19/06/2007 and since then, the complainant is the legal owner of this land.
2.2 The disputed land was illegally occupied by the petitioner and though the land was falling under a residential zone of Zone-1, he has illegally constructed godowns of "Sheetal Estate" and has been generating financial gain by selling and renting them out. He has also built a mosque on the front portion of the land. Therefore, a complaint is filed with the District Collector, Ahmedabad city in this regard under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, being S. R. No. 02/2021. Based on the order dated 12/01/2021 from the Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined Member Secretary, District Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Committee and Resident Additional Collector, Ahmedabad, vide letter no. CB/ LANDGRABBING/COMMITTEE MEETING/01/2021, wherein order was passed to register a crime, therefore, the complainant had filed a complaint at Sarkhej Police Station.
2.3 In the meantime, the complainant came to know that the disputed land falls under a "Disturbed Area" and though the petitioner had no legal rights or share in it, without obtaining prior permission from the District Collector for the transfer or change of possession, which is mandatory for disturbed area, he illegally executed rental and other agreements concerning disputed land. Therefore, the complainant filed an application under the Disturbed Areas Act with the District Collector, Ahmedabad, vide Ashant Dhara Case No. 31/2018. During the hearing of this application, the District Collector ruled that since the Respondent - petitioner herein had violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Disturbed Areas Act and taken possession of the disputed property, the applicant - original complainant herein can initiate criminal proceedings against him under Section 9(A) and based on that order, the complainant has filed impugned FIR.
2.4 To quash the impugned FIR, present petition is filed.
3. Heard learned Senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr. Isa Hakim for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Nirav Thakkar for the private respondent and Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined learned APP Mr. Soham Joshi for the respondent State.
4. Seeking quashment of the impugned FIR, learned Senior counsel Mr. Joshi would submit that base for filing the impugned FIR is order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad (West) in CDC(5)/Ashant dharo Case No.312018 (Annexure H). He would further submit that order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the City Deputy Collector was unsuccessfully carried to challenge before the SSRDC (Annexure I). He would further submit that said orders were carried to challenge before the Coordinate Bench of this Court by filing SCA No.15270 of 2020. He would further submit that the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 7.12.2021 passed detailed order while issuing rule and stayed further proceedings of order dated 21.10.2019. He would further submit that the order of the learned Single Judge has been assailed before the Division Bench by filing LPA No.1150 of 2022 in SCA No.15270 of 2020. Vide oral order dated 15.1.2024, the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge by holding that there is no violation of provisions of the Act of 1991. He would further submit that in the aforesaid premises, when the Coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the order passed by the City Deputy Collector, which is confirmed in LPA by the Division Bench, making the same as base to file questioned FIR is abuse of process of law.
4.1 Learned senior advocate would further submit that the factual aspect indicates that father of the private respondent Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined i.e. late Harish Ambalal Sheth executed registered agreement to sell on 18th February 1984 in regards to the disputed land in favour of Lakhubhai Patel and subsequently, the registered agreement to sale No. 2888 was executed on 20th February 1987 in favour of the petitioner and pursuant to which, the petitioner came in possession of the disputed land. He would further submit that at the relevant time, disputed area was not falling within the disturbed area defined in Act of 1991. He would further submit that prior to coming into force of the Act of 1991, another act, namely Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Movable Property and provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1986 (in short "Act of 1986") was in existence. It is replaced by Act of 1991. He would further submit that as per notification issued under the Act of 1991, disputed land was not covered and therefore provisions of Act of 1986 were not applicable to the transaction, which was executed in the year 1984 and subsequently in the year 1987. Learned Senior counsel would further submit that this issue is subject matter of SCA No. 15270 2022, whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court issued rule and stayed the order passed by the City Deputy Collector dated 21st October 2019, it cannot be used as a foundation to file the FIR. Learned senior advocate, taking this court through the order passed by the City Deputy Collector, would submit that even if we takes the order as it is, it records breach of section 5 of the Act of 1986 and directed to initiate proceedings under section 9A of the Act of 1991. He would submit that the FIR is filed for the breach of section 6D of the Act of 1991 instead. He would further Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined submit that section 6D of the Act of 1991 provides penalty for the contravention of sections 4 and 5 of the Act 1991.
4.2 Referring to section 5A, 4B of the Act of 1991 learned Senior counsel would submit that if we took the allegations levelled in the FIR as it is, allegations are that the petitioner failed to restore the possession of the immobile property within the stipulated time period. He would further submit that section 5A has been introduced in the Act of 1991 by Gujarat Act No. 17 of 2020 dated 15th October 2020. He would further submit that in that way also, section 4 of the Act is also introduced by Gujarat Act No. 17 of 2020 dated 15th October 2020 and some of the provisions, namely, clause (b) and (c) of section 5 is also substituted by same act on the same date. Learned Senior counsel would further submit that since transfer of land took place in 1984 and subsequently in 1987, sections 5A and 4B of the Act of 1991 would not attract retrospectively. Consequently, breach of section 6D of the Act of 1991 would not arise. He would further submit that though the City Deputy Collector was of the opinion that criminal proceeding under Section 9A of the Act of 1991 was required to be initiated, for no reason, the police has initiated the proceedings under Section 6D of the Act of 1991.
4.3 In nutshell, learned Senior advocate would submit that the entire gamut has been taken place by the complainant in connivance with the police to file the FIR, which is nothing but sort of putting shadow on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court staying the order dated 21st of October Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined 2019. In the aforesaid premises, learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi would submit to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. NC Thakkar appearing for the private respondent took this Court through different notifications annexed with the petition and submit that the notifications received under the RTI Act indicate that even during the operation of Act of 1986, Juhapura area, where the disputed land falls, was declared as disturbed area and therefore, transaction claimed by the petitioner in his favour is hit by section 2(c) of the Act. He would further submit that even any right, title and interest in the immovable property are transferred by way of agreement to sell or even through power of attorney, it is an offence within the provisions of the Act of 1986 or 1991. He would further submit that in the present case, it is admitted position that transfer of right, title and interest by way of agreement to sell made in favour of the petitioner contravenes the provisions of Act of 1986 or 1991, as such transfer took place within disturbed area without prior permission of the collector, attracts penal consequences.
5.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Thakkar prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned APP while adopting the arguments of learned advocate Mr. Thakkar would submit that the petitioner, who has constructed more than 120 shops on the disputed area, continuously transferring right, title and interest in favour of Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined third party even before filing or after filing of the FIR and subsequent to the order passed by the City Deputy Collector and therefore, it attracts the contravention of provisions of Act of 1991. In view of that, he would further submit that the FIR is maintainable and it should not be scuttled at threshold by exercising inherent powers.
6.1 Upon such submission, learned APP requests to dismiss the petition.
7. At the outset, let refer contents of the FIR (translated into English from vernacular language):-
"Being asked personally, I hereby declare and dictate the facts of my complaint that I reside with my family at the address mentioned above and am a businessman as well as a visiting faculty at a college. I own a plot of land which is under my independent possession, with an area of 8030 sq.m., bearing Survey No. 43/1/P/1, located at Mouje Okhaf Sim, Taluka-City, District-Ahmedabad. The aforementioned land was registered in the name of my father, Harish Ambalal Sheth. After his death on 07/01/2006, my name was legally entered into the revenue records of the said land vide entry no. 2586 dated 19/06/2007. Since then, I have been the legal owner of this land.
The said land under my ownership with an area of 8030 sq.m., bearing Survey No. 43/1/P/1, located at Mouje Okhaf Sim, Taluka-City, District-Ahmedabad, was illegally occupied by the accused of this case, Ahmedbhai Allarkhabhai Patel, residing at 10/A Chitrakut Society, Raj Nagar, Paldi, Ahmedabad city and though the land was falling under a residential zone of Zone-1, he has illegally constructed godowns of "Sheetal Estate" and has been generating financial Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined gain by selling and renting them out. He has also built a mosque on the front portion of the land. Therefore, I filed a complaint with the District Collector, Ahmedabad city in this regard under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, being S. R. No. 02/2021. Based on the order dated 12/01/2021 from the Member Secretary, District Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Committee and Resident Additional Collector, Ahmedabad, vide letter no. CB/ LANDGRABBING/COMMITTEE MEETING/01/2021, wherein order was passed to register a crime, I had filed a complaint at Sarkhej Police Station.
In the meantime, I came to know that my aforementioned land with an area of 8030 sq.m., bearing Survey No. 43/1/P/1, located at Mouje Okhaf Sim, Taluka-City, District-Ahmedabad falls under a "Disturbed Area" and though the accused, Ahmedbhai Allarkhabhai Patel, residing at 10/A Chitrakut Society, Raj Nagar, Paldi, Ahmedabad city, had no legal rights or share in it, without obtaining prior permission from the District Collector for the transfer or change of possession, which is mandatory for disturbed area, he illegally executed rental and other agreements concerning my aforementioned land. Therefore, I filed an application regarding this matter under the Disturbed Areas Act with the District Collector, Ahmedabad, vide Ashant Dhara Case No. 31/2018. During the hearing of this application, the District Collector ruled that since the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Disturbed Areas Act and taken possession of the disputed property, the applicant can initiate criminal proceedings against him under Section 9(A) and based on that order I have come here to file this complaint.
Therefore, as the accused, Ahmedbhai Allarkhabhai Patel, residing at 10/A Chitrakut Society, Raj Nagar Paldi, Ahmedabad city, despite having no legal rights or share in my aforementioned land with an area of 8030 sq.m., bearing Survey No. 43/1/P/1, located at Mouje Okhaf Sim, Taluka-City, District-Ahmedabad, Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined which falls under a disturbed area, has executed illegal rental and other agreements without the required permission from the District Collector and moreover, as he has not handed over the possession of the land and the construction, despite there being an order from the City Deputy Collector (West) dated 21/10/2019, this is my complaint to conduct investigation against him as per law. "
8. It is specifically stated in the FIR that though there is a specific order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the City Deputy Collector to restore the possession of the disputed land, petitioner has not restored the possession and as such, has committed offence u/s 6(D) of the Act of 1991. Apart from the aforesaid, what could be noticed that another FIR under the Land Grabbing Act is also made against the petitioner.
9. Apt to note that the private respondent has filed complaint before the Collector, Ahmedabad (Annexure G) to initiate proceedings under the Act of 1991 against the petitioner and some other persons. He principally questioned execution of the sale deed by himself in favour of M/s L7 Commodities and Securities Private Limited on 31.1.2010 alleging that the sale deed was executed by him without receiving sale consideration. According to him, he has executed sale deed for the disputed land without taking possession from the Collector. While levelling allegations against M/s L7 Commodities and Securities Private Limited, in a complaint at Annexure G, he also referred the transaction which took place at the behest of his father in 1984 and thereafter, in 1987 through which, the petitioner came in possession of the disputed land. The City Deputy Collector Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined passed an order on 21.10.2019 and cancelled the sale deed No.1266 of 2010 and directed to restore the possession of the disputed land u/s 5(a) of the Act of 1991 and further directed to initiate proceedings for breach of section 9(a) of the Act of 1991. The order was carried to challenge before the SSRDC. The order dated 7.11.2020 passed by the SSRDC (Annexure I) confirmed the order passed by the City Deputy Collector. Noticeably, the transaction carried out in favour of the petitioner was not cancelled by the City Deputy Collector or by the SSRDC. Since the order of restoration was passed by the City Deputy Collector and confirmed by the SSRDC, the petitioner put both the orders to challenge by way of filing SCA No.15270 of 2020 before this Court. The matter was listed before the Coordinate Bench of this Court for multiple times. On 7.12.2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the SCA vide detailed order issued rule and stayed the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 21.10.2019. Relevant observations and findings are made in para 6 to 10, which reads as under:-
"6. Pertinently, the issue revolves around land bearing Revenue Survey No.43/1/P5, admeasuring 5052 square yards of Village Aukaf, Taluka Vejalpur, District Ahmedabad. As is discernible from the record, on 18.2.1984, a registered agreement to sell was executed by the father of the respondent no.3 in favour of Shri Lakhubhai Ladhabhai Patel, i.e. the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 and one Shri Rajendra Chunilal Tripathi became the joint owners of the land with 50% equal share. On 20.2.1987, the rights were transferred by a registered agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. Clearly, the earlier transactions are of the years 1984 and 1987 when, Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined the Act of 1986 was in currency, apropos which, the notification was issued under Section 3 of the Act of 1986, notifying the areas of the Ahmedabad city as disturbed areas. A bare perusal of the said notification suggests that the Sarkhej area was not covered in the said notification. The Act of 1986, was repealed by the Act of 1991 and thereafter, a notification dated 29.10.1994 was issued, covering the area of Sarkhej. Therefore, it is only in the year 1994, the area of Sarkhej, was covered within the purview of the Act of 1991. Pertinently, the transaction in favour of the petitioner, was executed in the year 1987 and thereupon, the construction has been made and transferred in favour of 120 occupants. The transfer in the year 1987 have never been disputed or challenged. Hence, this Court, is of the prima facie opinion that the transactions being prior to 1991, would not be governed by the provisions of the Act of 1991.
8. Perceptibly, apropos the complaint filed by the respondent no.3, the show cause notice came to be issued by the Deputy Collector, initiating the proceedings under the Act of 1991 for breach of the provisions of Section 5, which led to passing of the order dated 21.10.2019, directing restoration of the possession under Section 5A and to initiate prosecution under Section 9A of the Act of 1991. Pertinently, the provisions of Sections 5A and 9A were introduced in the year 2010. Therefore, the directions contained in the order for restoration, so also launching of the prosecution against the petitioner, appears to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Besides, while passing the order, in paragraph 9, the Deputy Collector has observed, in vernacular, english translation whereof would be to the effect that there is a breach of Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code inasmuch as, the agricultural land has been used for non-agricultural purpose, without any permission, as well as breach of the provisions of Section 66 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. There are observations made about the breach of Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined Planning & Urban Development Act, and the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. It has also been observed that though the petitioner has no ownership right, has carried out the construction without any permission and therefore, the construction is illegal and separate proceedings shall be initiated for removal of the construction. Clearly, the Deputy Collector was excersing the powers under the provisions of the Act of 1991 and hence, could not have issued any directions for breach and/or for taking any action for the breach under the other enactments, namely, Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
9. . So, the order of the Deputy Collector, appears to be erroneous. Further, in the appeal before the SSRD, the SSRD, without dealing with contentions raised as regards execution of the transaction prior to 1991 and consequential non-applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1991, has straightaway rejected the appeal. There is not a semblance of discussion about the Sarkhej area being not notified as a disturbed area as well as how the provisions of the Act of 1991 would apply to the transactions of the year 1987. As is discernible from the order of the SSRD, it also has acted beyond the jurisdiction inasmuch as, it is an admitted fact and not disputed by the State Government that till 29.10.1994, the land in question was not covered under the Act of 1991.
10. In view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court, is of the prima facie opinion that the orders, both of the Deputy Collector, so also the SSRD., are without jurisdiction. Hence, the execution, implementation and operation of the orders dated 21.10.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 - City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad (West) and dated 7.11.2020 passed by the respondent no.1 Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, are hereby stayed."Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined
10. In the LPA No.1150 of 2022 filed by the private respondent before the Division Bench of this Court questioning the legality and validity of the aforestated order, the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the LPA vide oral order dated 15.1.2024, observed as under:-
"1. Having heard Mr. Pranavbhai Harishbhai Sheth, the party in person and perused the show cause notice dated 19.06.2019, pursuant to which, the proceedings under the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, 1991") were initiated against the petitioners, leading to passing of the order dated 21.10.2019 by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad (West), the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge. It is evident that the proceedings against the petitioners were initiated on an application dated 09.05.2018 submitted by the respondent/appellant herein, viz. Pranavbhai Harishbhai Sheth, stating therein that prior permission under the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 was not taken in respect of the sale deed No.1266/ 2010. The allegation of fraud, cheating and trespass on the property in question bearing survey No.43/1, Part-I of Mouje Okaf, District Ahmedabad was made against the petitioners with the assertion that they have made illegal construction without permission of the competent authority over the plot in question. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 19.06.2019 indicates that the petitioners were called upon to explain as to why action will not be taken against them being the occupants of the property in question of violation of the provisions of the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act and why the document No.1266/2010 be not declared as null and void and the possession be not taken from the existing illegal occupants.Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined
2. We may record that the petitioners had challenged the proceedings initiated under the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, 1991, with the show cause notice dated 19.06.2019 and the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad (West) with a categorical assertion that an agreement dated 18.02.1984 was executed by the father of the appellant herein, viz. respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition and the land was transferred in favour of one Lakhubhai Ladhabhai Patel. It was also the case of the petitioners that another document dated 20.02.1987 was executed in favour of the petitioners. Both the documents having been executed prior to the enforcement of the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, 1991, the order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad (West) was wholly without jurisdiction. Taking note of the above, on a pointed query made by the Court, the appellant/party-in-person admits that the sale deed No.1266/2010 was executed by the appellant himself in favour of a third party. We fail to understand as to how, notice could be issued to the petitioners on the basis of non-compliance of the provisions of the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 with reference to the sale deed No.1266/ 2010, which was executed by the complainant himself/appellant herein.
3. Be that as it may, a categorical finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge to the extent that both the documents dated 18.02.1984 and 20.02.1987, which are the basis of claim of the petitioners being in rightful possession of the land in question, were prior to the enforcement of the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, 1991. It is further noted that at the time of the transactions of the year 1984 and 1987, the Act of 1986 was in currency and under the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, 1986, notifying the areas of Ahmedabad City as disturbed areas, Sarkhej area was not covered. Later on, the Act of 1986 was repealed by the Act, 1991 and vide notification dated 29.10.1994, Sarkhej area was covered under the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, 1991. The finding returned by the learned Single Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined Judge is that prima facie, only in the year 1994, Sarkhej area was covered within the purview of the Act, 1991, therefore, it is not understandable as to how transaction in favour of the petitioners made in the year 1987 was in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1986.
4. Taking note of the contents of the show cause notice, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the prima facie opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge that both the transactions in favour of the petitioners were not hit by the provisions of the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act, 1991.
5. However, the fact remains that the appellant herein is a complainant. The validity of the order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector (West), Ahmedabad is to be examined by the learned Single Judge taking note of the stand of the rival contesting parties. We cannot pre-empt on the question of the validity of the order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad(West) on the submission of the appellant that the possession of the petitioners over the property in question is an illegal possession. Be that as it may, all the issues, which are being raised in the instant Appeal, can very well be agitated before the learned Single Judge. As we do not find any error in the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, no interference is required in the instant Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
6. The Civil Application for direction does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.
7. It is further submitted by the appellant that he has filed affidavit-in-reply to the Writ Petition and submitted all documents before the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, provide that the learned Single Judge shall make an endeavor to decide the matter on merits in an expeditious manner."
11. At this juncture, learned APP having noticed that order Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined dated 21.10.2019 being base of the FIR, has been stayed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court submitted that private respondent - complainant has never informed the police authority about staying of the order dated 21.10.2019.
12. It is noticeable that the order, which is the base and pivotal to register the FIR is stayed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and stay has been confirmed by the Division Bench by dismissing the LPA. Therefore, the FIR, which is filed on the basis of order dated 21.10.2019 appears to be vexatious proceeding calling it abuse of process of law. The Coordinate Bench of this Court is seized with the issue. Filing of FIR therefore, indicates that the complainant has attempted to shadow the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court staying the implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 21.10.2019. This attempt is found to be malicious. Filing of the FIR is therefore, not less than lega abuse.
13. Apt to note that order of the City Deputy Collector permits to initiate proceedings u/s 9(a) of the Act of 1991, but the FIR is filed u/s 6D of the Act of 1991 taking the said order as base. There is no explanation on the part of the investigating officer or the private respondent that how the FIR came to be filed u/s 6D of the Act of 1991 though the City Deputy Collector ordered to initiate proceedings under section 9(a) of the Act of 1991.
14. Going through the order passed by the Coordinate Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined Bench of this Court in SCA No.15270 of 2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court seriously doubt application of Act of 1986 or 1991 in a transaction which took place in 1987. I am unable to understand that how the finding arrived at by the Coordinate Bench of this Court confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA, could be nullified by filing questioned FIR. The abuse of process of law is found manifestly in the matter.
15. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law in regards to quashing of the FIR, which reads as under:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/21965/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are sO absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
15.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration.
16. In the result, present petition is allowed and impugned FIR being C.R.No. - 11191048212154 registered with Sarkhej Police Station as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
Consequently, both the CrMA Nos.1/2023 & 1/2025 do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:49:45 IST 2025