The Gujarat High Court has questioned the invocation of the Land Grabbing Act against long-term tenants who have been in possession of the land since 1975. The court directed the Ahmedabad district collector to explain how a committee under her authority endorsed an FIR against the tenants, stating that it appears to be a misuse of the law. The proceedings on the FIR filed by Narol police against the tenants has been stayed. This development is part of a series of petitions challenging the provisions of the 2020 anti-land grabbing law, with the court seeking a personal affidavit from the district collector in this particular case.
The Gujarat High Court has raised questions about the application of land grabbing laws against long-standing tenants who have occupied a piece of land since 1975. The court has directed the Ahmedabad district collector to provide an explanation regarding how a committee, headed by her, endorsed an FIR (First Information Report) under the Land Grabbing Act against tenants who have maintained possession of the land for nearly five decades. The court has expressed concerns that these provisions of the law may have been misused and has consequently halted the proceedings related to the FIR filed by the Narol police against the tenants.
This development occurred within the context of a series of petitions challenging the provisions of the 2020 anti-land grabbing law. Despite considering these petitions as a group, the court has chosen to separately address this specific case by seeking a personal affidavit from the district collector.
The matter was brought before the court through a petition filed by Ashwin Gajjar, who, along with three others, faced charges of land grabbing based on a complaint lodged by the landowner, Kalpesh Patel. The committee tasked with determining the land grabbing case directed the registration of an FIR, leading to Gajjar's arrest and a subsequent seven-day detention before he was granted bail. Following his release, Gajjar initiated a civil suit, which resulted in a civil court ordering a status quo on the property's possession.
Gajjar's advocate, Megha Jani, argued before the High Court that the land in question had been rented out by Patel's grandfather, Ramabhai, in March 1975 under a renewable rent agreement. Since then, Gajjar and his family have maintained possession of the land, operating Bhawani Timber Mart & Sawmill on the premises. The current landowner sought to regain possession of the property, prompting him to file a complaint with the committee, alleging that the tenants were unwilling to vacate the land.
In response to the committee's notice, the petitioner and his partner provided an explanation, asserting that a valid rent agreement was in place, and the complainant had been consistently receiving rent payments. Despite this explanation and their status as long-standing tenants, the committee chose to disregard their claims and proceeded to lodge an FIR against them. The lawyer argued that Gajjar was a tenant and not involved in any land grabbing activities.
In summary, the Gujarat High Court's decision to scrutinize the application of land grabbing laws against tenants who have held possession of the land for nearly half a century highlights concerns about the potential misuse of such legal provisions. The court's call for a personal affidavit from the district collector underscores the need for a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding this case. As this matter unfolds, it will provide valuable insights into the interpretation and application of land grabbing laws in the state of Gujarat.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
