logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 GHC 059 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
Case No : R/Special Civil Application No. 17273 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Parties : Nadeemkhan Valibahadar Pathan & Others Versus City Deputy Collector (East) & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Kashyap R. Joshi(2133), Advocate. For the Respondents: Nikunj Kanara, AGP.
Date of Judgment : 16-02-2026
Head Note :-
Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Gujarat Prohibition for transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions for protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991
- Section 5(3)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition for transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions for protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991
- Section 5(3) of the Gujarat Prohibition for transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions for protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991
- Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879

2. Catch Words:
- Quash
- Set aside
- Prior permission
- Disturbed areas
- Sale deed registration

3. Summary:
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 19‑10‑2024 of the City Deputy Collector (East), Ahmedabad, which rejected their application for prior permission under Section 5(3)(b) of the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act for registering a sale deed. The court examined the statutory requirement that the Collector consider only free consent and fair market value. It found that the impugned order was passed on extraneous considerations without any finding on the two statutory factors, rendering it bad in law. Consequently, the order was set aside and the application was remanded to the Deputy Collector for fresh adjudication in accordance with Section 5(3)(b). The court emphasized that the hearing must be effective and a reasoned order issued within eight weeks. No merits of the underlying sale were decided.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

Oral Order

1. The present writ petition is filed for the following reliefs :-

          "[A] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 19-10-2024 passed by the City Deputy Collector (East) Ahmedabad (Annexure-F), and may please allow the Application under Section 5(3) of the Disturbed Areas Act made by Petitioners No.10 to 14 (Annexure-C) as deemed to have been granted and direct the Sub Registrar, Ahmedabad-1(City) Gheekanta, Ahmedabad (Respondent No.4) to admit the execution of the Sale Deed and register the same in accordance with the law.

          [B] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to grant Interim and Ad. Interim relief in terms of "A" above.

          [C] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to grant such other Order or Orders as in the interest of justice and good conscience, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

2. Brief facts of the case are that after a prolonged civil proceedings and in terms of compromised entered between the parties, the petitioners No. 10 to 14 have agreed to sell the property in question to the petitioners No. 1 to 9. Since the father of the petitioners No. 1 to 9 was already in possession of the subject property, the parties have agreed to execute the sale-deed for a consideration as per the market price. Since the property was situated within the disturbed areas notified under the Gujarat Prohibition for transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions for protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991, the petitioners No. 1 to 9 and petitioners No. 10 to 14 have jointly made an application to the respondent No.1- City Deputy Collector (East), Ahmedabad on 26.03.2024 in the prescribed form No.3 seeking prior permission under Section 5(3)(b) of the said Act. The respondent No.1 - City Deputy Collector by the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 has rejected the application of the petitioners on the basis of the opinion given by the Circle Officer as well as the report of the Police Inspector.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the reasoning relied upon by the respondent No.1 while rejecting the application of the petitioners is dehors the provisions of Section 5(3)(b) of the Act. He submits that as per the said provision, the respondent No.1 has to take into consideration only two factors firstly, the sale has taken place by free consent and without any coercion and secondly, the property is being sold at fair value/ market price. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that without adverting to these two factors, the impugned order has been passed. He therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara submits that the respondent No.1 has taken into consideration the relevant factors while passing the impugned order. He submits that as per the report given by the Circle Officer as well as Police Inspector, it is found that there is a possibility of imbalance in the mixed population living in the area and also likely disturbance of peace. Learned AGP submits that the impugned order has been passed taking into consideration various aspects. He therefore, submits that the impugned order is just and proper.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Considered the submissions and perused the documents.

6. Section 5(3)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition for transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions for protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 reads as under :-

          "Section 5 (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) (a) Any person intending to transfer immovable property situated in a disturbed area may, within the prescribed period and in the prescribed form, make an application to the Collector for obtaining previous sanction under sub-section (1).

          (b) On receipt of such application the Collector shall hold a formal inquiry in the manner provided by the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and after giving an opportunity to the applicant to be heard and after considering any evidence produced, decide whether the transfer of immovable property is proposed to be made by free consent of the persons intending to be the transferor and the transferee and for a fair value of the immovable property proposed to be "transferred and accordingly

-

          (i) reject the application; or

          (ii) by an order in writing give previous sanction to the proposed transfer of immovable property."

          xxx xxx xxx

7. In the impugned order, the respondent No.1- City Deputy Collector has not rendered any finding in terms of the provisions of Section 5(3)(b) of the Act. The impugned order has been passed on considerations which are dehors the provisions of Section 5(3)(b) of the said Act. The impugned order is therefore bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application of the petitioners is restored to the file and is remanded back to the respondent No.1 for deciding the same afresh in terms of provisions of Section 5(3)(b) of the Act. The respondent No.1 shall decide the application in accordance with law taking into consideration the judgments rendered by this Court and strictly follow the provisions of Section 5(3) (b) of the said Act. The application of the petitioners shall be decided within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent No.1 shall give an effective hearing to the petitioners. The Petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all contentions as available in law. The respondent No.1 shall deal with all the contentions so raised by the petitioners and thereafter pass a reasoned order.

8 It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no opinion is expressed thereon.

9. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

Direct service is permitted.
 
  CDJLawJournal