Today( 3rd June),The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Gujarat government regarding a plea challenging the Gujarat High Court’s ruling upholding the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. A division bench has stayed proceedings related to the FIR against the appellants, with notices returnable in August, providing temporary relief to them.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today( 3rd June), The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Gujarat government regarding a plea that challenges the Gujarat High Court’s ruling, which upheld the constitutionality of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. This decision, made in May, has been brought into question by appellants who argue against its validity.
On Monday, a division bench composed of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih addressed the issue by staying further proceedings related to the First Information Report (FIR) filed against the appellants. The court has scheduled the notices to be returnable in August. This interim measure provides temporary relief to the appellants as the legal process continues.
The case involves Kishan Boriya, Govind Boriya, and Bharat Boriya, who are currently entangled in legal proceedings due to an FIR lodged in Rajkot. This FIR pertains to a land purchase in Kotharia village within the district. The petitioners assert that they are bona fide purchasers who, despite their good intentions and legal declarations, have been unjustly targeted.
According to their claims, they made a declaration in a civil suit in 2019 before a civil judge in Rajkot, expressing their willingness to relinquish their rights to the property. However, despite this declaration, an FIR was registered against them in November 2021.
Advocate Virat Popat, representing the petitioners, has been actively challenging both the constitutionality of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and the legitimacy of the FIR registered against his clients. He argues that the act and the subsequent legal actions are unfairly punitive and do not align with the constitutional protections afforded to his clients.
The petitioners’ plight emphasizes a broader debate regarding the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, which has been a subject of controversy since its inception. Critics argue that the act, while aimed at curbing illegal land acquisition, often ends up penalizing legitimate land transactions and bona fide purchasers. This case could potentially set a precedent for how such disputes are handled in the future.
As the Supreme Court prepares to review the matter in August, the legal community and affected parties alike are keenly observing the developments. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for land acquisition laws and property rights in Gujarat and potentially across India.
The appellants remain hopeful that the Supreme Court’s intervention will provide clarity and justice in their case. The stay on proceedings offers them a temporary reprieve, but the final verdict will be crucial in determining the future course of action for similar cases.
The Supreme Court of India has issued a stay order on a particular First Information Report (FIR) against the appellants, following the Gujarat High Court’s validation of a contentious Act. The Gujarat High Court, in its judgment dated May 9, upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, dismissing over a hundred petitions challenging it. This decision has paved the way for the state machinery to initiate criminal and civil proceedings under the Act.
The Supreme Court’s direction, however, specifically pertains to the FIR involving the appellants and does not extend to all FIRs lodged under the Act. This nuanced distinction highlights the court’s focused approach in handling individual cases while acknowledging the broader legal framework established by the Gujarat High Court.
Following the Gujarat High Court’s ruling, which affirmed the Act’s constitutional validity, advocates representing some petitioners requested an extension of the interim relief that was previously granted. This interim relief had stayed further proceedings on the FIRs lodged under the Act. The advocates sought an extension of this stay until July 30, noting that the Supreme Court would reopen on July 8.
However, this request for an extension was met with rejection by the Gujarat High Court.
The court’s reasoning was articulated clearly:
“The court agreed at the outset of the argument that it would only assess the validity of the legislation, refraining from delving into the specifics of individual cases.”
READ ALSO: Gujarat High Court: Rejecting ‘Chalta Hai’ Approach in Affidavit Filings
The Supreme Court’s intervention, while providing immediate relief to the appellants in the specific FIR, does not alter the broader implications of the Gujarat High Court’s judgment. The Act remains constitutionally valid, allowing state authorities to proceed with other criminal and civil cases under its provisions. This dual layer of judicial oversight—first by the Gujarat High Court on the Act’s validity and then by the Supreme Court on individual FIRs—illustrates the complex legal processes involved in addressing widespread legislative challenges.
