ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. The complainant herein is the daughter of one Shabirali Ramzanali Kapasi, who, according to the complainant, was the original tenant of the shops in question, i. e. shop Nos.1, 2 and 3 situated in the city of Mahuva, near Global Talkies, which is presently occupied by the petitioner for running the business in the name of Paras Stationery.

2. We may record that the petitioner herein is a younger brother of late father of the complainant and claims to be occupying the shops in question for running the business since after the death of the father of the complainant herein. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the father of the respondent complainant had died in the year 1982 and the mother of the complainant had remarried.

The complainant was about nine months old on the date of death of her father in the year 1982.

3. It seems that a family settlement dated 08.08.2010 had been arrived between eight persons of the family, which included the petitioner herein and as per the said family settlement agreement dated 08.08.2010, the shops in question fell in the share of the petitioner herein. In other words, it was agreed between the family members that the shops in question occupied by the petitioner for running the business will continue to be occupied by him as tenant of the Trust, which is original owner of the shops in question.

4. It is further relevant to note that a Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 2011 filed before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mahuva had been decreed on 23.05.2011 in terms of the family settlement dated 08.08.2010. In various paragraphs of the afÏdavit-in-reply filed by the respondent complainant, it is asserted that the respondent complainant/daughter of the original tenant had never been invited/included in the family settlement, which was arrived between other members of the family and the compromise decree is collusive. The submission is that the interest of the complainant, who is the daughter of the original tenant, has been hampered on account of the family settlement and the compromise decree passed by the Civil Court.

5. In view of the above submissions, at least, this much is evident that the issue being raised by the respondent complainant about occupation of the shops in question by the petitioner does not fall within the meaning of the ‘Land Grabbing’ under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 [In short as “the Act, 2020”]. The question raised by the complainant in the afÏdavit-in-reply is the question of inheritance after the death of the original tenant, who had admittedly died in the year 1982. There is no dispute that the original tenant was inducted by the Trust/landlord in the shops in question. The occupation by the petitioner of the shop in question being younger brother of the original tenant, after the death of the original tenant cannot fall within the meaning of ‘Land Grabbing’ as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act, 2020, which speaks of occupation of physical possession without any lawful entitlement.

6. The dispute pertaining to the validity of the family settlement dated 08.08.2010 or the compromise decree dated 23.05.2011 having been obtained by fraud by the petitioner herein along with other family members, cannot be examined within the scope of the Act, 2020 as the dispute does not fall within the meaning of ‘Land Grabbing’.

7. For the aforesaid, the complaint made by the respondent is found to be wholly misconceived. The order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the Committee, i. e. respondent No.2 for lodging the F.I.R. against the petitioner herein under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 is hereby quashed.

8. While quashing the complaint and the order passed by the respondent No.2 for initiating the action against the petitioner herein under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed.

9. However, it is open for the respondent