The Gujarat High Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. The Court dismissed over 150 petitions challenging the Act’s validity, affirming that it aligns with constitutional provisions and does not contravene central laws.
Gujarat: Today (9th May): The Gujarat High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, along with its associated rule. The bench led by comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and AP Mayee, comes after deliberating on a batch of over 150 petitions challenging the law’s validity.
READ ALSO: Gujarat High Court: Rejecting ‘Chalta Hai’ Approach in Affidavit Filings
The Court, in its judgment, emphasized that there is no conflict between the Gujarat law and central legislation. Additionally, it clarified that the absence of presidential assent does not render the Act inconsistent with Article 254 of the Constitution, which deals with conflicts between laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures.
The bench stated
“After thorough consideration, we find no valid grounds to deem the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, and its associated rules unconstitutional. Upon examining the essence of the legislation, we affirm its alignment with entries 18, 64, and 65 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Consequently, there is no conflict with Central laws such as the Limitation Act, CPC, CrPC, Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act, or the Evidence Act. Moreover, our comparative analysis reveals similar legislation’s validity, with parallel provisions upheld in Assam, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka. Hence, we dismiss all the writ petitions.”
Addressing concerns raised by petitioners, the Court affirmed that the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, aligns with entries 18, 64, and 65 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It asserted that the Act does not clash with central laws such as the Limitation Act, CPC, CrPC, Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act, or the Evidence Act.
The Court referenced similar legislation upheld in other states like Assam, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka with comparable provisions, bolstering its decision to dismiss the petitions.
The Court further asserted that the 2020 law does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
“Upon examining various provisions of the 2020 Act, we find a clear objective and rationale aimed at curbing land grabbing activities in Gujarat. Consequently, the Act does not contravene the basic structure of the Constitution, nor does it infringe upon Article 14. Moreover, the civil and criminal trial procedures outlined in the legislation are not arbitrary,” the judgment stated.
“Regarding the issue of proportionality, particularly the imposition of a minimum sentence of 10 years for land grabbing, we defer to the legislature’s wisdom, as representatives of the people. Therefore, the Act cannot be deemed ultra vires based on proportionality concerns. Challenges on grounds of harsh or disproportionate punishment are unfounded, and we uphold the Act’s compliance with Articles 13, 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution,” the Court affirmed.
The Court also rejected a challenge to the Act’s retrospective application.
“We find no merit in the argument against the Act’s retrospective application or the absence of mens rea. Such challenges are baseless and non-existent. Similarly, objections to the rules accompanying the 2020 Act are deemed untenable,” the Bench concluded.
Moreover, the Court rejected a plea to suspend the Act’s application pending appeal to the Supreme Court, emphasized the Act’s consistency with the Constitution’s basic structure.
READ ALSO: Gujarat High Court Upholds MBBS Admission Cancellation Of a Reserved Category Student
Dismissing challenges related to retrospective application and absence of mens rea (guilty mind), the Court affirmed the Act’s validity and dismissed objections to its rules.
