Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jayeshreeben Bhavinbhai Dave, filed a Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court seeking to quash a communication dated 3 April 2023 from the Office of the Collector, Ahmedabad. The Collector had informed the petitioner that her application to initiate proceedings under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 against private respondents (Respondent Nos. 9 and 10) was being filed because a Regular Civil Suit No. 31 of 2013 was pending between the parties regarding the same land. The petitioner claimed that the private respondents were illegally occupying her land in Survey Nos. 847 and 848 at Mauje: Daduka, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad. She sought directions to the respondent authorities to initiate proceedings under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 and to hand over vacant possession of the land. The petitioner argued that the civil suit was between her and other family members, and the private respondents were not parties to that suit, so the Collector should not have declined her application. The court heard learned Advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Meet Thakkar for the State. The court noted that the Collector's communication clearly stated that the civil suit was pending between the parties and that the decision of the civil court would be binding. The court held that the existence of a civil suit between the parties regarding the same land precludes invocation of summary proceedings under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. The court found no error in the Collector's decision and dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the civil court.
Headnote
A) Land Grabbing - Pending Civil Suit - Jurisdiction of Collector - Section 3, Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 - The petitioner sought initiation of proceedings under the Act against private respondents for alleged illegal occupation of land. The Collector declined to proceed due to pendency of Regular Civil Suit No. 31/2013 between the parties. The High Court held that the existence of a civil suit between the parties regarding the same land precludes invocation of summary proceedings under the Act, as the civil court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate title and possession disputes. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-4) B) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction to challenge the Collector's decision. The Court held that when a civil suit is pending between the parties regarding the same subject matter, the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the civil court. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should quash the Collector's decision to file the petitioner's application under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, due to the pendency of a civil suit between the parties regarding the same land.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court found no error in the Collector's decision to file the petitioner's application due to the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No. 31/2013 between the parties. The existence of a civil suit between the parties regarding the same land precludes invocation of summary proceedings under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020.
Law Points
- Existence of a civil suit between parties regarding the same land precludes invocation of summary proceedings under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act
- 2020
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not to be exercised when alternative remedy of civil suit is pending
