65Yr-Old Wrongly Jailed In Land Grabbing Case: Gujarat High Court Issues Show Cause To Then Ahmedabad District Collector

While hearing the plea of a 65-year-old man against his "illegal detention" for allegedly being in wrongful possession of a property in 2023, the Gujarat High Court last week asked the then Ahmedabad District Collector to explain why proceedings for "dereliction of duty" should not be initiated against him, after noting that a committee headed by the officer proceeded to lodge an FIR against the man without perusing the record.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi in its order said, "From the original record of the enquiry conducted by the committee constituted under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 2020, it is evident that the committee headed by the Collector, Ahmedabad formed opinion on the complaint simply by perusal of the report of the City Deputy collector (Ahmedabad East), without perusal of the record which has lead to making of the report by the City Deputy Collector (Ahmedabad East). Once this in admission on the part of the Collector in his affidavit filed on 18.10.2023, in compliance of order dated 21.09.2023, it is evident that the committee headed by the Collector had acted in a casual manner in proceeding to take a decision to lodge FIR against the petitioner which has resulted in the petitioner being lodged behind the bar for 7 days".

"The casual approach and the non compliance of statutory provisions by the Committee headed by the Collector is writ large on the face of the record and in view of the admission in the affidavit of the Collector dated 18.10.2023 we call upon the then Collector who headed the Committee–on the date of taking decision 28-06-2023–as indicated in the affidavit of the collector. The officer concerned shall show cause as to why the proceedings for dereliction of duty on his part be not directed to be initiated against him and further as to why the petitioner be not compensated for the mental sufferance caused to him due to him being lodged behind the bar for seven days terming him as criminal though the petitioner is a lawful occupant of the building in question," the high court added.

The Court further said that the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Government of Gujarat) be informed to conduct an inquiry into the manner in which the committee headed by the collector, decided the complaint without perusing the "original record of the complaint", and solely on the basis of the City Deputy Collector (Ahmedabad East) who had submitted a "wrong report".

"The explanation of the collector as also other members of the committee and report be submitted before this court on the next date fixed," the court directed and listed the matter on August 28.

The petitioner Ashwin Gajjar had moved the high court against the FIR arguing that he cannot be termed as a "land grabber" of the property in question–which had "wrongly been termed as grabbed property" as he was put in possession of the property in execution of a 1975 Rent Agreement, executed by the predecessor-in-interest of another individual, the respondent No.2/complainant in the case.

Gajjar said that he had also been paying rent to the respondent complainant and all of this was brought before the Committee constituted under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act headed by the then Collector while submitting his reply to the notice dated 25.03.2023 issued by the Deputy Collector under the Act. However, ignoring his explanation, the facts with regard to possession of the petitioner over the land in question, the Committee has decided to lodge a First Information Report. In September 2023, the high court had stayed the proceedings in the FIR.

During the hearing on August 13 the counsel appearing for the State submitted that it appears from the proceedings and the Panchnama that the deputy collector had prepared a report that report along with other documents were placed not placed before the Committee.

To this the Chief Justice orally said, “See, it's not a simple mistake. You have issued notices to the petitioner, petitioner gave you reply, the reply was not brought before the Committee, so we're initiating enquiry. You cannot harass people like this. And then the petitioner was forced to remain in jail for your mistake. We're asking the Home Secretary to look into it. This type of high handedness cannot be accepted".

The Chief Justice also orally questioned the Collector for failing to submit an affidavit detailing the committee's findings. It further orally said, “Where is the apology of the Collector? Have you filed an affidavit of apology? We want an apology! … We are not here to manage your own office. We are calling the collector to file his explanation as to how he conducted the proceeding and put the person behind the jail.”

Meanwhile the counsel appearing for the State said, "It will be done. Apology has to come it will come. There was an affidavit it appears that it was not filed at our end. I will file. If the honorable court gives me some time I will do the needful, the apology as well as the record". He further submitted that it was the City Deputy Collector should have presented the information, but did not.

To this the high court orally said, “Collector is not an innocent person. He should have called for the entire record before taking any decision to lodge an FIR. That means the committee doesn't go through the record. And this is the answer the Collector is giving, and then today he's not filing any apology. And you're asking the Court to accommodate him.”

At this stage the State's counsel said that he would file the necessary affidavit. To this the Chief Justice orally said, “We are not giving you any opportunity to file any affidavit. We are straight away calling for the explanation of the collector. How can you do this?”.

On the state's submission that preliminary inquiry was conducted by city deputy collector which was not placed before the committee and that this was would be "rectified and needful be done", the high court orally said, "Can you bring those seven days back? can you put the clock back? And that was the apprehension they have raised. This was what was continuously pout forth that these executive authorities will misuse the process; and this is a sheer example of misuse of process. You have to think twice. Peruse the records. You cannot do this and then come to court saying sorry mistake has happened".

Case Title: Ashwinbhai @ Ashwinkumar Amrutlal Gajjar V/S State Of Gujarat & Ors.

Case No.: R/SCR.A/12369/2023