Criminal prosecution under Land Grabbing Act constitutes abuse of process when long-standing possession is rooted in tenancy claims and pending revenue litigation.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the continuous possession of land based on historical revenue entries of "protected tenancy" constitutes "land grabbing" under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020

The court held

The Court answered the issues in favor of the petitioners, holding that the dispute is essentially civil and the petitioner’s possession is rooted in long-standing revenue entries.

It also directed

the Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 11199010211195 and all consequential proceedings

Rule was made absolute

01Facts

The petitioners challenged FIR No. 11199010211195 registered at Bharuch City Police Station for alleged violations of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020.

The petitioner’s father was recorded as a "Protected Agriculturist" of the subject land since 1948

p. 2, para 3.2

While the ownership changed hands over decades—eventually being purchased by Respondent No. 2 in 2010—the petitioners maintained continuous, uninterrupted possession

pp. 3, para 3.8-3.10

the Deputy Collector’s 2015 order specifically protected their possession subject to civil proceedings

p. 4, para 4

A revision application regarding these tenancy rights remained pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at the time the FIR was lodged

p. 4, para 3.12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the continuous possession of land based on historical revenue entries of "protected tenancy" constitutes "land grabbing" under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020

pp. 5-6, para 8-10

ii.2. Whether criminal proceedings can be maintained when the dispute is essentially civil in nature and sub-judice before a revenue tribunal

p. 6, para 10

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 4(3) and 5(c) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, which criminalize the act of land grabbing and the occupation of land without any lawful entitlement

pp. 1-2, para 2

It further relied on the landmark precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which establishes the criteria for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC, particularly where allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance

p. 7, para 10

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. Section 4 Section 5

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the petitioner's predecessor was recorded as a protected tenant as early as 15.02.1948

p. 5, para 8

Crucially, the sale deed by which the complainant (Respondent No. 2) purchased the property explicitly acknowledged the petitioner’s status and presence in the revenue records

p. 6, para 9

The Court reasoned that since the Deputy Collector had legally protected the petitioner’s possession in 2015 and the matter was currently under adjudication by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the petitioner could not be prima facie classified as a "land grabber"

p. 6, para 10

The Court found that the complainant utilized the 2020 Act as a "pressure tactic" to circumvent civil litigation, thereby making the criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of law

p. 5, para 4.2 · p. 7, para 10

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in favor of the petitioners, holding that the dispute is essentially civil and the petitioner’s possession is rooted in long-standing revenue entries.

p. 7, para 10

the Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 11199010211195 and all consequential proceedings

p. 7, para 9

Rule was made absolute

p. 7, para 9

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF