IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CHALLENGING VIRES/ULTRA VIRES) NO. 2964 of 2024 =============================================

MANISH MANSUKHLAL SANGHADIYA S/O MANSUKHLAL RAMJIBHAI SANGHADIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MUSKAN A GOGIA(6624) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MAHESHB BARIYA(2234) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 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. Perused the affidavit dated 14.11.2025 filed by the District Collector, Rajkot. It is stated therein that a complaint under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 (for short, “the Land Grabbing Act’ 2020”) dated 26.09.2023 has been filed by the respondent No.3 but the same was never placed before the committee headed by the Collector. Rather, opinion was sought from the Police and the District Supply Officer (an officer of Deputy Collector Rank). Further, upon intervention of this Court, when interim order was passed on 05.03.2024 staying further proceedings in the complaint, no further proceedings under the Land Grabbing Act’ 2020 has been commenced.

2. The facts on record reflect that the property in question is a shop located at City Survey Ward No.1, Survey No. 1556 admeasuring 14.62 sq.mtrs. (located at Kadiya Navline, Street No.10, Rajkot), in a residential commercial property. The application under the Land Grabbing Act has been filed by the respondent No.2 who is a subsequent purchaser of the property in question by way of a registered Sale deed dated

23.10.1980 along with other two persons.

3. It is categorically stated in the writ petition that the petitioner herein is an old tenant of the shop in question, which was taken on rent from the original landlord, namely Shri Harilal Jethalal Parmar. The complainant, thus, along with other persons had purchased the property in question with the pre-existing tenancy rights. One of the co-purchasers, namely Indravardan Ramanlal Kansara used to collect rent from the petitioner and issue rent receipt. One of the rent receipts dated 11.05.2016 is appended as Annexure ‘D’ to the writ petition.

4. It is further submitted that since the co-owner stopped collecting the rent, the rent amount was tendered by the money order sent on 27.04.2022. The copy of the money order receipt issued by the Postal Department is appended as Annexure ‘E’ to the writ petition. It is further contended that the petitioner had tendered rent, thereafter, on 11.07.2023 for the period from 01.04.2022 to 30.09.2023, however, the landlord had refused to accept the same.

5. There are allegations of harassment of the tenant caused at the hands of the landlord, as a result of which a Small Causes Suit No.28 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking injunction against the landlord and further direction to the landlord to make repairs of the shop in question.

6. The contention, thus, is that in a case of sitting tenant, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to entertain the complaint and prepare even a report. Contrary to the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act’ 2020, the complaint was entertained and the police authorities had submitted a report dated 29.10.2023 recommending for initiation of the proceedings under the Land Grabbing Act’

2020.

7. However, no proceedings has further been commenced as the matter has not been placed before the committee constituted under the Land Grabbing Act’ 2020 in view of the interim protection granted by this Court staying further proceedings.

8. In the reply submitted on behalf of the complainant, namely respondent No.3, it is submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have stopped acce