Gujarat High Court Rejects Ashram Trust’s Challenge to Land Forfeiture Over Grant Violations

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, through a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Mr. Justice D.N. Ray, has dismissed two Letters Patent Appeals filed by Sant Shri Asharam Ashram Trust. The court upheld concurrent orders forfeiting land granted for charitable purposes and directing eviction from encroached government land.

Roots of the Dispute: Decades of Allotments and Subsequent Allegations

The Sant Shri Asharam Ashram, a registered public charitable trust, had received multiple grants of land at Mouje Village Motera, Taluka Sabarmati, District Ahmedabad. Starting with an allotment order dated 30 April 1980 for 6,261 square metres under Rule 32 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, the trust later secured regularization of additional areas through orders in 1992 and 1997. The total authorised holding stood at approximately 33,980 square metres.

Conditions attached to these grants were clear: maps and plans required Collector approval before construction, prior permission in prescribed form had to be obtained before use, the land could not be put to profitable activity, and the grant remained subject to new and impartible tenure. The trust operated a Gurukul, spiritual activities, and Ayurvedic clinics on the premises.

Proceedings began in 2023 when authorities issued notices under Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code for alleged breach of conditions and under Section 61 for encroachment of an additional 15,778 square metres. A measurement exercise conducted by the District Inspector of Land Records using Differential Global Positioning System technology formed the factual backbone of the eviction order.

The Trust’s Case: Allegations of Pre-Meditated Action and Regularisation Rights

Senior Counsel Mihir Thakore and R.S. Sanjanwala argued that the entire exercise was tainted by legal mala fides. Internal communications between the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and the Collector in 2021 had flagged the Ashram land for potential forfeiture in anticipation of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Sports Enclave project. They contended that the show-cause notices prejudged the outcome, rendering subsequent hearings an empty formality.

The trust emphasised that constructions had stood for more than two decades and that development and building-use permissions had been granted by AUDA in 2008-2009. Thirty applications for regularisation under the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022, remained pending. They challenged the measurement sheet of 31 July 2023, pointing to earlier layouts from 1998, 2008 and 2013 that allegedly showed a different demarcation of the “Sim Rekha” boundary line. The appellants further argued that summary proceedings under Sections 61 and 79A could not decide disputed questions of profitable activity or title without full-fledged inquiry.

State’s Defence: Habitual Encroachment and Absence of Essential Permissions

Government Pleader G.H. Virk countered that the trust had never obtained the mandatory Collector’s permission required under the allotment conditions for either construction or non-agricultural use. The 30 regularisation applications themselves proved extensive unauthorised development. Earlier measurement sheets relied upon by the trust were shown to be private or “paiki” exercises limited to specific parcels and lacking authentication.

The State highlighted a previous encroachment proceeding in 2009 involving over 51,000 square metres of riverbed land, from which the trust had been evicted after admitting the occupation. The court was told that no formal allotment order or delivery receipt existed for the disputed 4,860 square metres of Sabarmati riverbed land claimed under a 1999 government resolution.

Court’s Reasoning: Summary Power Valid When Conditions Are Clear

The Division Bench held that both the forfeiture proceedings under Section 79A and the eviction proceedings under Section 61 had been conducted in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. Multiple opportunities to produce documents — audited accounts, fee structures, Collector permissions, and proof of allotment — were extended yet remained unutilised.

The court found the 2023 measurement sheet, prepared scientifically over six days with reference points and satellite technology, to be unimpeachable. Earlier layouts presented by the trust were either self-serving, unsigned, or confined to limited parcels and did not contradict the comprehensive survey. The Bench rejected claims of mala fides, noting that identification of government land potentially available for public projects is a legitimate administrative exercise.

On the allegation of profitable activity, the court drew an adverse inference from the trust’s failure to produce its best evidence — audited financial statements and income-expenditure details of schools and clinics. The appellants’ conduct was described as that of a “habitual offender.”

Key Observations

> “The petitioner has failed to show any legal right of occupying the lands in question. Summary eviction proceedings under Section 61 of the Code, as such, requires no interference.”

> “The best evidence in the possession of the petitioner has been withheld, adverse inference is to be drawn.”

> “No infirmity can be attached to the proceedings drawn by the respondent authorities under Section 79A of the Code, which empowers the respondents to forfeit the grant land on breach of conditions of allotment.”

> “Identification of such violations is a continuous exercise… any encroachment or unauthorised constructions, if identified, can be removed only by adopting due procedure of law.”

Final Outcome and Wider Implications

Both Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed. The court declined to stay the operation of the judgment, accepting the State’s assurance that reasonable time would be granted under Section 202 proceedings before any coercive action.

The decision reinforces that beneficiaries of government land grants must scrupulously adhere to tenure conditions and obtain required permissions before undertaking construction or commercial activity. Summary proceedings remain competent when the foundational allegations rest on clear documentary breaches and scientific measurement evidence. The ruling also signals judicial reluctance to interfere with lawful resumption of public land when the occupant has previously been found to be an encroacher.