Gujarat High Court Calls Asaram's Ashram 'Habitual Offender'; Upholds Eviction From Encroached Land, Riverbed
The Gujarat High Court dismissed pleas moved by 'Sant Shri Asharam Ashram' challenging revenue and eviction proceedings, for encroaching upon a large area of land and after finding that the trust had violated allotment conditions and regularization orders. Upholding the findings of the single judge, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray in its order...
The Gujarat High Court dismissed pleas moved by 'Sant Shri Asharam Ashram' challenging revenue and eviction proceedings, for encroaching upon a large area of land and after finding that the trust had violated allotment conditions and regularization orders.
Upholding the findings of the single judge, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray in its order said:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner – trust not only violated the conditions of the orders of allotment / regularization orders of grant of Government land, but also encroached upon a substantial area of open land surrounding the allotted lands, even the land from the riverbed, for its use and illegal occupation over the period of years. The petitioner is found to be a habitual offender, who had earlier encroached on a large area of about 51,101 sq.mtrs of open land forming part of Sabarmati river, which was proved in the eviction proceedings conducted under Section 61 of the Code in the year 2009. Even otherwise, the allegations of breach of conditions of the allotment / regularization orders have been found to be proved by the learned Single Judge as well as by us in view of the discussion made hereinabove".
From the record the court noted that there was nothing which would indicate that the map of constructions was ever placed before the Collector or approved by him. It further noted that the trust had not placed on record any permission from Collector approving the "map of construction" or any permission given by Mamlatdar prior to using the land.
On the trust's contention that its land was being taken over by the authorities for construction of proposed sports complex based on certain inter-departmental communications, the bench in its 80 page order, held that inter-departmental communications cannot be considered a basis for passing order for forfeiture of land under Section 79A Land Revenue Code. The communications, the bench said, may be considered merely as a part of the exercise for identifying available land for the purpose of sports complex, wherein the illegal constructions raised by the trust over the lands in question were identified and noted.
"We find substance in the submission of Mr. G.H. Virk, learned Government Pleader that if a Government land is allotted to a private person on the terms and conditions of the allotment order, which if violated, Sharatbhang proceedings can be initiated, at any point of time, as per the conditions of allotment itself, which permits resumption of the Government land in cases of such violations. Identification of such violations is a continuous exercise, however, any encroachment or unauthorized constructions, if identified, can be removed only by adopting due procedure of law.
In the instant case, no infirmity could be shown in the legality of the proceedings conducted against the petitioner, in the Sharatbhang case proceeded under Section 79A, wherein after affording due opportunity of leading evidence and personal hearing granted to the petitioner, the order of forfeiture has been passed. All allegations of mala fide or bona fide of the respondent authority, vehemently pressed into service by the learned Senior Counsel to assail the judgment impugned are liable to be rejected outrightly," the court added.
The court said that the trust had been found to be a habitual offender as it had encroached upon a large area of about 51,101 sq. mtrs. of land forming part of the Sabarmati river from which it had been evicted in the proceedings initiated in 2009 which concluded in 2013. The court noted that the trust had made further encroachment, which was subject matter of the present proceedings, and thus it did not find any good ground to issue a direction for regularization of the existing constructions, which were extensive and were covering the river bed.
"At the cost of repetition, it is stated that there is no question of regularization of a riverbed land encroached by the petitioner. Any such indulgence would be contrary to the decision of the Apex Court. Even otherwise, no error having been found in the concurrent findings of fact returned by the competent authorities in two proceedings under Section 79A and Section 61 of the Code, separately, wherein principles of natural justice have been duly followed, we cannot attach any infirmity to the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing both the writ petitions, while refusing to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of the constitutional court," the bench held.
Background
The appellant trust (petitioner before single judge)–Sant Shri Asharam Ashram, registered under Gujarat Public Trusts Act and undertaking charitable, educational and spiritual activities, claimed that 39,094 sq.mtrs of land at Mouje Village Motera, in Taluka Gandhinagar (now Taluka Sabarmati, District Ahmedabad) was allotted to it through orders of the State Government from time to time.
The trust claimed that in 2021 Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) wrote to the Collector, Ahmedabad to reserve certain land and not to create any third party rights, on such lands until further instructions. This, included trust's land ad-measuring 17,916 sq.mtrs amongst other 23 land areas owned by the State Government and gauchar land.
It was contended that on 25.01.2022, the Collector passed an order to reserve the 24 land parcels–including the trust's land–for acquisition for proposed construction pertaining to hosting of Commonwealth Games / Olympic Games. It was claimed that a special purpose vehicle by the name of Gujarat Olympics Infrastructure and Planning Corporation Ltd. (GOLYMPIC) has been created to monitor and coordinate works towards development of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Enclave.
The trust had challenged orders passed by the revenue authorities, which were dismissed by high court's single judge bench holding that proceedings were initiated against the trust on the ground of encroachment of 15,778 sq.mtrs. area in addition to the allotted / regularized area of 33,980 sq.mtrs.
The single judge dismissed another writ petition by the trust challenging revenue proceedings (where trust's plea for regularization of dismissed for violation of allotment conditions), holding that from the material on record it emerged that the primary focus of the trust in the writ petition was on 4860 sq.mtrs. of land, which is forming part of the water body, i.e. Sabarmati River. The single judge had held that such land cannot be regularized.
Against this the trust moved in appeal before the division bench.
The trust contended that the revenue proceedings suffers from malafides as in a preplanned manner, the Ashram's land is being taken away for the purpose of developing a sports enclave for Commonwealth / Olympics 2036, along with other surrounding land in the area. It was argued that the allegation of unauthorized construction by the trust, indicates that Section 79A (eviction) Land Revenue Code proceedings were initiated for forfeiture of Ashram land, where constructions are existing for more than 26 years.
It was contended that breach in the condition of allotment and proceedings for summary eviction from the lands in question on the basis of a 2023 report by District Inspector Land Record (DILR) where no finding of fact could have been recorded, are all liable to be set aside.
The appellant consistently argued that it is in possession of 39,094 sq.mtrs. of land only and no area beyond that. It was alleged that there was no proper identification of the area of alleged encroachment. The unilateral measurement sheet dated 31.07.2023 prepared behind the back of the trust cannot be relied on to hold that the trust has encroached upon the Government land, gamtal (residential) land and Nadi (river) paiki land.
Meanwhile the State argued that the exercise of identifying available land for constructing sports complex cannot be termed a malafide action by the respondent, inasmuch as, it is always open for the respondent authorities to identify such Government lands, which are in unauthorized occupation of private persons or where unauthorized constructions are raised.
It was contended that such identification is a continuous exercise and any encroachment or unauthorized construction, if identified, can only be removed by adopting due procedure of law.
With respect to allotment near Sabarmati river, the State argued that there was a proposal for allotting the land, but no order or certificate was shown by the trust regarding allotment nor any order of regularization of possession of over 4860 sq.mtrs. of the land from the river paiki was shown. The trust had not explained as to how it could occupy this land without any formal allotment order or certificate of allotment and delivery of possession by the competent authority.
Case title: SANT SHRI ASHARAM ASHRAM THROUGH TRUSTEE AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY RAJESHKUMAR SHADILAL BHARTI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 107 of 2026