Gujarat High Court Imposes Cost On Persons 'Hounding' Muslim Man Who Purchased Shops In Predominantly Hindu Area

The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a review petition seeking recall of an order approving the sale of certain shops in a predominantly Hindu area to a Muslim man.

Justice Biren Vaishnav also imposed Rs. 25,000 costs on the petitioners, stating it "is a disturbing factor that a successful purchaser of property in a disturbed area is being hounded and thwarting his attempt to enjoy the fruits of the property which he successfully purchased."

The petitioners were witnesses to the sale transaction. However, they now objected to the sale on the ground that they were coerced to sign the agreement. The Deputy Collector had also passed an order rejecting permission for sale on the ground that such sale was likely to affect the balance in the majority Hindu/ Minority Muslims and could develop into law and order problem.

This order of the District Collector was challenged before the High Court in 2019 which observed that what is to be seen is whether the sale was for a fair consideration and with free consent. The consideration on whether it would create a law and order problem and disturb the equilibrium was misconceived. Hence the petition was allowed.

The issue cropped up again when the sale was to be registered by the sub-registrar. The petitioners, witnesses to the sale, claimed that their signatures were obtained under coercion. Meanwhile, an impleadment application came to be filed by persons whose shops were adjacent to the shop purchased by the Muslim man.

At the outset, the High Court found that the motive of the applicants is questionable. It said,

"Two years after the decision they surface before this Court asking for a recall of the order on the ground that they have never signed or that they were coerced into signing...the State machinery has gone ahead and re-examined these panchas in the year 2022- 23, in which, they appear to be not disputing their signatures but the circumstances of they being made to sign...This exercise of the State, through on affidavit is a suggestion of opposing the application, but the intention is seen otherwise."

The court further observed that the petitioners were being prevented from undertaking repairs to the dilapidated structure and when they were being prevented by the neighbors they had to complaint to the police.