GUJARAT HIGH COURT
A.S. Supehia, J.
Kunverben Markhibhai Karmur – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 4580, 4588, 4605, 4879, 5117, 5134, 5169, 8716 of 2021
Decided on 19-07-2021
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 – Sections 4(2), 4(3), 5(a) and 5(c) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – There is delay in registering F.I.R. – Prima facie, case is based on documentary evidence which is with Investigating Officer – Applicants are victims and not land grabbers – One of co-accused has been released by this court on anticipatory bail – Considering facts of the case, custodial interrogation of applicants at this stage is not necessary – Anticipatory bail granted. (Paras 7 and 9)
Result: Applications allowed.
ORDER
Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing.
2. By way of the present applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused have prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11202046210044 of 2021 registered with Jamnagar Panch ‘B’ Police Station, Dist. Jamnagar for the offences under Sections 4(2), 4(3), 5(a) and 5(c) of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, as per the F.I.R. well as charge-sheet, which is filed in the case of the co-accused is that the land bearing survey No.131 and 132 situated at village Dared, has been grabbed by the applicants. The contentions of the F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet reveals that one – Vijaykumar Malani incorporated new Dared Non-trading Corporation (Scheduled) the and he had made a layout plan comprising of 179 sub-plots and handed over possession to the applicants by way of agreements to sale on different dates commencing from 2012.
4. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that there are more than 110 accused arraigned in the F.I.R. He has further submitted that the concerned land was allotted to one – Bhura Ladhabhai Bharvad in the year 1963 as new tenure land for agricultural purpose and upon demise of Bhurabhai, a revenue entry came to be posted in favour of his family members on 27.06.1993 and thereafter, appropriate permission was also sought from the Collector by paying premium and an entry came to be made vide order dated 21.10.1995 in favour of Narshibhai Hemantbhai Patel. He has submitted that the Collector had also granted permission to the concerned subject land by order dated 17.06.1996 and thereafter, the subject land was matter of various litigations and ultimately, on 05.08.2013, Narshibhai Hemantbhai Patel has filed an application for conversion of the said land for non-agricultural purpose and vide order dated 15.10.2013, the Collector, Jamnagar rejected the said application on the count that it is already being used for nonagricultural purpose, therefore, permission cannot be granted. It is further submitted that on 25.07.2016, upon physical verification by the office of Collector, it was noticed that there has been a breach of condition qua agricultural use and the said land came to be vested as Government Land and in the meantime, one - Vijaykumar Malani incorporated the aforesaid society and the layout plan was also made by him comprising 179 sub-plots, which are handed over to the applicants.
4.1. Learned advocate has further submitted that thus the applicants cannot be said to be land grabbers as they are bona fide purchasers of the said land and appropriate orders were passed by the concerned authorities from 1963 to 2016 with regard to the subject land. It is further submitted that the public notice dated 05.01.2021, which was issued by the Collector qua the aforesaid land, is challenged before this Court in a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.3159 of 2021 and vide order dated 16.02.2021 the public notice has been stayed till further orders. Thus, it is submitted that looking to the time lapse, the present applications may be granted as the case of the applicants would not fall within the purview of this Act.
4.2. It is further submitted that as per the revenue records it can be deduced that from the year 1993 to 2014, the revenue authorities have never gone into the merits of the aspect that whether the subject land can be converted for non-agricultural purposes from agricultural purpose and it was only the jurisdictional part of the Collector, which attracted interference from the Revenue Department and that too was subsequently cured, when the proposal was sent by the Collector qua conversation of the land. It is also submitted that even in the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.15754 of 2010 dated 29.07.2013, a communication from the officer of the Colle
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.