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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

Rule was made absolute