IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CHALLENGING VIRES/ULTRA VIRES) NO. 1083 of 2024 =============================================

SHRI PRADIP HIRALAL CHOTALIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS KAJAL L KALWANI(6623) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MAHESHB BARIYA(2234) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS.MAITHILI MEHTA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 18/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Having noted the submissions made in the affidavit dated 14.11.2025 filed by the District Collector, Rajkot, it is categorically stated that on the application dated 26.09.2023 passed by respondent No.2 under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 (for short, “the Land Grabbing Act’ 2020”), the matter was not placed before the Committee headed by the Collector, Rajkot, rather opinion was sought from the Police and the District Supply Officer (an officer of the Deputy Collector rank), before this Court had taken cognizance of this matter.

2. Further, since by order dated 25.01.2024, this Court has stayed further proceedings under the Land Grabbing Act’

2020, no further proceedings has commenced so far.

3. It is also stated that the petitioner has initiated proceedings against the respondent No.2 and another person before the Small Causes Court and the said case is numbered as Small Cause Suit No.01 of 2024.

4. The specific contention in the writ petition is that the father of the petitioner was a tenant in the shop in the building known as “Labhu Villa Building” on the ground floor, since the year 1967, located in Kadiya Nav Line, Street No.10 of Rajkot, and was doing business of the printing press. The petitioner had taken joined the business with his father. After demise of the original tenant, the tenancy right in the shop in question has been devolved upon the petitioner.

5. The complainants are the subsequent purchasers of the property in question from the original landlord vide sale deed dated 23.10.1980. It is, thus, contended that there were pre- existing tenancy rights with respect to the shop in question in favour of the petitioner and the property was purchased with the sitting tenant.

6. A Regular Civil Suit No. 214 of 1991 was filed by the purchaser against the father of the petitioner before the Civil Court, Rajkot seeking for decree of eviction, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.02.1997 while holding that the father of the petitioner was tenant of the suit premises since 1967 and the landlord was residing at the first floor of the building in question.

7. Placing the judgment and decree dated 24.02.1996, it is submitted before us that the tenancy rights of the father of the petitioner in the shop in question has been established before the Civil Court and since the petitioner has legally inherited the tenancy after the death of his father, he cannot be termed as the ‘land grabber’.

8. It is further contended that even after the sale of the shop in question, the purchasers used to collect rent till 2019 and only after 2019, they refused to accept the rent, which was, then, tendered, up to 31.01.2024, by money order. The copies of the sample rent receipts and the money order dated

11.01.2024 have been appended with the writ petition.

9. There are assertions in the writ petition as to how and in what manner, the respondent landlord / complainant was harassing the petitioner.

10. Be that as it may, inspite of the aforesaid facts, it seems on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 alleging offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Land Grabbing Act’ 2020, the proceedings have been initiated by the District Collector, Rajkot, wherein respondent No.3, namely the As