Gujarat High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 Which Prescribes Minimum 10 Yrs Jail

In a significant verdict, the Gujarat High Court today upheld the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, along with its allied rules. The Act is yet to receive Presidential assent.

The ruling came from a bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee, who pronounced judgement on a batch of over 150 petitions challenging the law.

The division bench held that the Land Grabbing Act, 2020, and its allied rules are not unconstitutional, dismissing claims that they violate several articles of the Indian Constitution.

In its ruling, the bench stated, "With the above discussion on each and every aspect of enquiry into the matter of considering the validity of Gujarat Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2020 on the issues raised by the learned counsels of the parties, we do not find any good ground to hold the Gujarat Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2020 and the the Rules, 2020 made there under as unconstitutional violative of Article 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In our conclusion or answer to the points of challenge framed by us is as under:

Considering the pith and substance of the Land Grabbing Act 2020, we hold that it is relatable to entries 18, 64 and 65 of List II of VII Schedule (of the Constitution of India) and as such there is no question of repugnancy to the Central laws such as the Limitation Act, 1963, Civil Procedure Act, 1908, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872."

"As agitated by the petitioners as there is no repugnancy, the Act 2020 cannot be said to be hit by Article 254 of the Constitution of India for want of Presidential assent. The challenge to the land grabbing act, 2020 on the plea of manifest arbitrariness being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by treating unequals at equals is turned down taking note of various provisions of the land grabbing act which are found to have rationale in with the object and purpose of the act 2020 which is to curb the land grabbing activities in the state of Gujarat," the Court added.

The Court further held that the Land Grabbing Act, 2020 cannot be said to be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, and its provisions do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution and the Procedure of civil and criminal trials provided in the impugned legislation cannot be said to be manifestly arbitrary.

"The Act cannot be challenged on the plea of harsh and disproportionate punishment. We hold that the Act is not violative of Articles 13, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution," the Court opined.

Regarding the imposition of a minimum sentence of 10 years for land grabbing, the Court 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.

It emphasised, "Testing the validity of the Land grabbing act 2020 on the doctrine of proportionality for providing minimum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years for land grabbing, it is concluded that the wisdom of the legislature must be given due credence, it is for legislation being representative of people to decide as to what is good or bad for them as it is supposed to know and be aware of the needs of people.”

“The Court cannot sit in judgement over its wisdom. Consequently, the 2020 Act cannot be said ultravires Article 13, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the doctrine of proportionality and cannot be invalidated on the plea of the prescribed punishment being hard, disproportionate and arbitrary. The challenge to the validity of the rules 2020 made under the land grabbing act 2020 is found to be unattainable,” the Court further ruled

The bench also pointed that similar legislations have been upheld elsewhere, notably in Assam and Karnataka.

“On a comparative reading of the Gujarat Act 2020 with the Pari materia legislations enacted by the State of Assam, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, we find that the validity of the pari materia provisions have been upheld by the Karnataka High court and Assam High court in the challenge to the enactment made by the State legislature. The only distinction pointed out was about the requirement of the presidential assent which has been dealt by us. … Consequently all the writ petitions in this group deserve to be dismissed being devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed," the Court concluded.

Case Title: Kamlesh Jivanlal Dave and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 64