AMARSANG CHATURSANG PARMAR (ABATED) vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/17857/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17857 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AMARSANG CHATURSANG PARMAR (ABATED) & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI(2133) for the Applicant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 10/07/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Rule fixed forthwith. Learned APP waives service of rule
on behalf of the respondent – State.
2 The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
quashing and setting aside of FIR No. 11199010211195, dated
23.08.2021, registered with Bharuch City Police Station, for
the offences punishable under Sections 4(3) and 5(c) of the
Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 01:08:15 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17857/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
3. Learned advocate Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi appearing for
the petitioner submits that:
3.1 The father of the present petitioner no.1 was having
possession of the land in question i.e., survey no.53 paiki
situated in Bharuch city since 1932 and he was cultivating
the same as an agriculturist.
3.2 Pursuant to above, on 15-2-1948 the name of the father of
the petitioner no.1 Chaturbhai Ranchhodbhai was entered by
way of mutation entry no.180 as Protected Agriculturist.
3.3 In the meanwhile, on the same land in the year 1951-'52
the name of one Vimalagauri d/o. Mukundrai Atmarai entered
into land bearing R.S.No.53 paiki i.e., the disputed land,
though, the possession was remained with the father
petitioner no.2 since then.
3.4 Thereafter, on 12-7-1966 pursuant to the tenancy
proceedings u/s.43 the said name had been inserted in the
second column in record of rights, but the uninterrupted
possession continued.
3.5 Then, on 09-3-1973 heir of Vimalagauri i.e., Prabhakar
Thakorelal Desai entered by way of mutation entry no.447.
3.6 Afterwards, on 03-3-1989 on death of Prabhakar
Thakorelal Desai, the said land inherited through Will by one
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 01:08:15 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17857/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
Pannaben Jayantilal, who claimed to be owner of the said
land.
3.7 During this period i.e., from 12-3-1970 to 08-9-2010 on
death of Chaturbhai Ranchhodbhai, the names of the heirs
have been inserted time to time respectively by mutation entry
no.372, 688, and 2998.
3.8 Then, on 04-8-2010, that Pannaben Jayantilal sold this
land to one Anjanaben Dalapatbhai Ahir by way of registered
sale deed.
3.9 Consequently, on 17-5-2011 mutation entry no.3026
made, but as the names of the present petitioners were in the
revenue record, no final entry was made at that time. Then, in
the year-2013, though, the so-called original owner Pannaben
Jayantilal had already sold the property on 04-8-2010, she
applied to the Mamlatdar ALT, Bharuch to delete the names of
the present petitioners.
3.10 On 30-10-2013, the Mamlatdar ALT partly allowed the
said Application and asked to prefer an appeal for the same.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the present petitioners
had preferred the Appeal in the year-2015 against the order of
the Mamlatdar before the Dy. Collector, Bharuch contending
their uninterrupted possession and they are the heirs of
protected agriculturist.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 01:08:15 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17857/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
3.11 On 10-12-2015, the Dy. Collector, Bharuch had rejected
the appeal of the present petitioners, though believed the
name of Pannaben as 'occupier' only, whereas she already sold
the suit land before five years.
3.12 Against the aforesaid order of the Dy. Collector, Bharuch,
the petitioners have preferred a Revision Application before
the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 05.08.2016 which
was registered on 03.09.2016 by Revision No. 326/2016.
Notice was issued to the respondent and it is still pending for
final hearing.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi for the petitioner
further submits that the present FIR has been lodged only
after the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 came
into force, by relying upon the order dated 30.10.2013 passed
by the Mamlatdar, Bharuch, whereby the petitioner's name
came to be deleted from the revenue record. He submits that
the said order is founded upon the order dated 10.12.2015
passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No.
2/14/3423, wherein the possession of the petitioner was
protected, subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings,
though the petitioner was not declared to be a tenant and the
appeal came to be rejected. Against the said order, the
petitioner has preferred Revision Application No. 326 of 2016,
which is pending for final hearing before the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal.
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 01:08:15 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17857/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
4.2 It is further submitted that even as per the averments
made in the FIR, the petitioner has been in possession of the
land for the last 30–35 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the petitioner is a land grabber, particularly when his
possession is not disputed by the complainant. It is contended
that, instead of resorting to appropriate civil proceedings, the
complainant has lodged the present FIR only as a pressure
tactic to evict the petitioner during the pendency of the
revision proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. On
these grounds, it is urged that the present application
deserves to be allowed.
5. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah could not dispute the fact
that the names of the petitioner's forefathers were reflected in
the revenue record since 15.02.1948. He also could not
dispute that, by Mutation Entry No. 1201 dated 03.03.1989,
the name of Smt. Pannaben Jayantilal came to be entered in
the revenue record as the legal predecessor of Chaturbhai
Ranchhodbhai.
7. Though served, none appears for the original
complainant.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the record as well as the
investigation papers, the following undisputed facts emerge.
The name of the predecessor of the present petitioner, namely
Chaturbhai Ranchhodbhai, was reflected in the revenue
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 01:08:15 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17857/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
record vide Mutation Entry No. 180 dated 15.02.1948 as a
protected tenant. Thereafter, the name of Smt. Pannaben
Jayantilal, as heir, came to be entered in the revenue record
vide Mutation Entry No. 1201 dated 03.03.1989. It is also an
undisputed fact that respondent No.2–original complainant
purchased the land from the said Smt. Pannaben Jayantilal,
who had succeeded to the property as the legal heir, while the
name of the original owner Prabhakar Thakorelal Desai had
already been reflected in the revenue record since 09.03.1973.
9. It further transpires that even at the time when
respondent No.2 purchased the land, the name of the
predecessor of the present petitioner as a protected tenant was
reflected in the revenue record and the said fact also finds
mention in the sale deed. Though the petitioner was not
declared to be a tenant in the proceedings before the Deputy
Collector, his possession was specifically protected, subject to
the outcome of the civil proceedings, by order dated
10.12.2015. The said order is under challenge before the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, where the revision application is
pending adjudication.
10. In such circumstances, when the petitioner's
predecessor has been reflected in the revenue record as a
protected tenant since 1948 and the petitioner's possession is
not in dispute, the petitioner cannot, prima facie, be termed a
"land grabber" within the meaning of the Gujarat Land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. The dispute is essentially
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 01:08:15 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17857/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
civil in nature and is already the subject matter of pending
proceedings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The
initiation of the present criminal proceedings, therefore,
amounts to an abuse of the process of law and squarely falls
within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, particularly the
categories enumerated in paragraph 102, clauses (1), (5) and
(7).
9. Accordingly, the present petition succeeds and is allowed.
FIR No. 11199010211195, dated 23.08.2021, registered with
Bharuch City Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 4(3) and 5(c) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 2020, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 01:08:15 IST 2026