The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition regarding land grabbing when an efficacious alternative remedy exists under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, which necessitates adherence to the established procedural framework.

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. J.F. Mehta for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent No.1.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the office of the Collector, Mehsana, intimating to the petitioner about decision taken by the Committee of consigning to file the application of the petitioner dated 03.04.2023 under the provisions of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had preferred an application/complaint dated 03.04.2023 under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 against the private respondents herein seeking action under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 for encroaching/grabbing the land of the petitioner. It would appear that vide the impugned order, it has been informed to the petitioner that the report of the City Survey Superintendent, (with regard to the complaint of the petitioner) indicates that the private respondents had not encroached upon any property. It was further informed that the private respondents have in no manner attempted to grab the land of the ownership of the petitioner being City Survey No. 3045, and therefore the complaint is consigned to file. The petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned order has approached this Court by way of this petition.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. J.F. Mehta for the petitioner would submit that the order in question is erroneous and requires to be interfered with. To a preliminary contention as raised by learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh as regards maintainability of the petition, learned Advocate Mr. Mehta would submit that since the petitioner does not have any other efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court and whereas it is attempted to be submitted that the Special Court would not have jurisdiction to try such cases. It is further submitted that appropriate directions may be issued while quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the office of the Collector, Mehsana.

5. On the other hand, as noted hereinabove, in addition to raising a preliminary objection, learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh would rely upon decision of a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Supehia) dated 25.01.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 18 of 2023, and submit that the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a similar scenario had laid down the law that the complainant had an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Special Court by filing an application for the alleged offence of land grabbing committed by private respondents. Relying upon the said decision, learned AGP Mr. Parikh would request that this Court may not entertain the present petition.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record including the decision of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the decision referred to by the learned AGP having laid down the law, that though in similar circumstances, the same would be binding on this Court and whereas while judicial discipline prohibits this Court from taking a different view, even otherwise, to this Court, no other view than the view taken by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is possible.

8. At this stage, reliance is placed upon Paragraphs No. 6 to 14 of the said decision, which are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:

"6. The short issue, which falls for deliberation before this Court, is that whether the petitioner has a remedy by filing an application before the Special Court