Advertisement
Private equity has played a significant role in shaping Indi...
In today’s real estate landscape, fitness is often treated...
In this episode of Prop Personalities, we sit down with Hars...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Welcome to Prop Personalities by Prop News Time - a podcast ...
A sessions court in Ahmedabad has denied bail to Dashrath Patel, owner of Popular Builders, in a land fraud case involving alleged forged succession documents and disputed ownership records related to land in Godhavi village. Investigators alleged that fake legal heir documents were created to secure illegal mutation entries before the land transaction was executed decades ago. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, Patel’s previous antecedents, ongoing investigation and concerns over witness influence while rejecting the plea. The case is part of a wider investigation into multiple disputed land transactions and alleged document forgery matters in Gujarat.
A sessions court in Ahmedabad has rejected the regular bail application filed by Dashrath Patel, owner of Popular Builders, in connection with a land fraud case related to disputed property records in Godhavi village near Ahmedabad. Patel, aged 67, is currently lodged in Sabarmati Central Jail while the investigation into the alleged forgery and manipulation of land documents continues. Advertisement
The case is linked to land bearing Survey No. 976/2 in Godhavi village and revolves around a sale deed executed in 1983. According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly created forged succession records and introduced a fictitious legal heir identified as Saryudas Satrudhandasji to obtain fraudulent mutation entries in revenue records before the land deal was completed. Investigators further alleged that original land documents connected to the transaction were either concealed or destroyed to prevent scrutiny during the probe.
During the hearing, Patel’s legal team argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and pointed out that the FIR had been lodged several decades after the original transaction took place. The defence further submitted that there was no direct documentary evidence carrying Patel’s signature or handwriting and claimed the prosecution case was largely based on interpretation of old land records and revenue documents. His counsel also referred to his age, medical condition and alleged cooperation during the investigation while seeking bail relief.
The state government opposed the bail plea and informed the court that the allegations involved serious economic offences connected to forged land records and illegal transfer of property rights. Prosecutors further argued that Patel had antecedents in similar land-related disputes and document forgery allegations. The prosecution also informed the court that there had allegedly been attempts through family members and intermediaries to pressure the complainant for settlement after the case was registered.
Investigating agencies told the court that Patel had remained absconding for a long period after the FIR was filed in 2022. He was later arrested from Nathdwara in Rajasthan in the past few weeks after police tracked his movements. Officials alleged that he frequently changed locations across Rajasthan and Maharashtra to avoid arrest. Reports linked to the investigation also stated that separate complaints involving alleged forged revenue records and disputed land ownership had surfaced in other parts of Ahmedabad district, including Sanand and Chekhla village.
The Patel brothers and Popular Builders have faced scrutiny in multiple land-related disputes in Gujarat over the years. Earlier investigations reportedly involved allegations related to forged revenue entries, disputed ownership transfers and illegal occupation of land parcels in rapidly developing areas near Ahmedabad. Dashrath Patel’s brother, Raman Patel, had also faced investigation and arrest in earlier cases connected to alleged land document irregularities.
While rejecting the bail application, the sessions court observed that the allegations were serious and involved larger questions related to manipulation of official land records. The court also took note of the ongoing investigation, the accused’s past conduct and the possibility of influencing witnesses before refusing to grant relief.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
