"Wholly Misconceived": Gujarat High Court Rejects Challenge To Vires Of Land Grabbing Act, Warns Of Exemplary Cost

Dismissing a plea seeking a declaration that provisions of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 2020 be declared ultra-vires, the High Court on Monday (July 14) noted that the plea filed was a "wholly misconceived petition", noting that the validity of the statute had already been adjudicated by the court in its judgment last year. The court said this after noting that the petitioners, after withdrawing a plea in 2024 for quashing of offences alleged against them under the Act, had filed the present plea in the "garb of challenging" the validity of statutory provisions.For context, the high court after hearing the matter on Monday, while dictating its order had imposed Rs 5 Lakh costs on the petitioner. Thereafter the matter was mentioned on Wednesday (July 16) by senior advocate Yatin Oza who had apologized on behalf of the petitioner and had sought condonation of the cost, wherein the court during the mentioning indicated affirmation. Thereafter the order which was uploaded on Thursday (July 17) dismissed the petition with a warning to the petitioner that any future attempt by him may entail exemplary cost. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray in its order said:"This is a wholly misconceived petition seemed to be filed on ill-advice of learned advocate who is taking aid of the decision of the Apex Court dated 26-5-2025 whereby writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Apex Court by the petitioners herein has been disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek remedies in accordance with law". The order notes the prayers made by the petitioners which includes that provisions of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 along with Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2020 be declared as ultra vires to the Constitution of India being in violation of Article 14, 20, 21 and Article 254 of the Constitution of India. It further seeks a direction for quashing FIR being C.R No. 11198035240935 of 2024 registered with Mahuva Police Station, Bhavnagar alleging offence U/s 4(3), 5(c) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. Taking note of the prayers in the present plea, the order states, "We may note that this is second round of writ petition before this court seeking for quashing of FIR".The July 14 order takes note of an order passed by the high court in first round of quashing petition wherein the court had noted the permission sought by the petitioners' to withdraw the quashing plea "at this stage, with a view to avail other remedy available in accordance with law"; the high court had in its order granted the permission and had disposed of the quashing plea as withdrawn granting the liberty as prayed for.The bench in its order notes, "In so far as the prayers 'B' in the writ petition seeking for declaration of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 read with the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2020 as ultra-vires to the Constitution of India, the issue has been adjudicated by this court in the judgment and order dated 09.05.2024, passed in a bunch of writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2995 of 2021". For context, the high court had in May last year in a batch of 150 petitions (Kamlesh Jivanlal Dave and Anr v/s State of Gujarat and Others. And Batch) had upheld the constitutional validity of the Act along with its allied rules. Regarding the imposition of a minimum sentence of 10 years for land grabbing, the Court had upheld the wisdom of the legislature, stating that it's the prerogative of elected representatives to determine what is in the best interest of the people.In the present petition, the high court in its order said:"It is thus evident that none of the reliefs prayed in the present petition are available to be agitated in the second round of petition under the garb of the observation made by the Apex Court in the order dated 26.05.2025. It is made clear that once the validity of the statutory provision has been adjudicated by this court, no subsequent petition seeking to agitate the issue of validity of the same statutory provision can be entertained". The court noted that for the relief of quashing of FIR, the petitioner had earlier approached the high court and through order dated November 19, 2024 the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with the liberty to avail the appropriate remedy. The court said that after withdrawal of the Quashing Petition, it appeared that "by concealment of all material facts, the petitioners have approached the Apex Court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India registered as Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). (200/2025)". It thereafter said:"The copy of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed before the Apex Court is not before us. Even otherwise, once the petitioners have withdrawn the writ petition filed for quashing of the First Information Report with the...

"Wholly Misconceived": Gujarat High Court Rejects Challenge To Vires Of Land Grabbing Act, Warns Of Exemplary Cost

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags