Gujarat HC: 2020 land-grabbing law cannot revive a 27-year-old family property dispute already rejected by civil court

The applicants invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. 11821011210235 of 2021 registered at Dahod Town Police Station under Sections 3 and 4(3) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, along with consequential proceedings in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2021.

The complainant alleged that the applicants and their relatives had illegally occupied property situated at Plot No. 14/B, Survey No. 76/1, Janakpuri Society, Dahod, since 1994.

The dispute concerned an intra-family claim relating to possession, title and partition of the property.

Earlier civil proceedings had been instituted, including Civil Suit No. 154 of 1994 and Civil Suit No. 3 of 2007; the latter was stated to have been dismissed by the civil court, after which no appeal or further civil proceeding was pursued.

The applicants contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of approximately 27 years and only after enactment of the 2020 Act.

They also relied on a Deputy Superintendent of Police inquiry report characterising the dispute as civil and recommending dismissal of the complaint.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings under Sections 3 and 4(3) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 disclosed a prima facie criminal offence or were an abuse of the process of law in the context of a longstanding civil and family property dispute.

2. Whether the alleged continuing possession could overcome the substantial delay and revive claims arising from a pre-existing and allegedly adjudicated civil dispute.

3. Whether the Collector’s direction to register the FIR was sustainable despite the contrary inquiry report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the absence of independent reasons for differing from that report.

4. Whether the proceedings against accused Nos. 7, 8 and 9 could continue when the FIR and charge-sheet did not establish their possession, title, nexus with the property, or involvement in the alleged removal of documents.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It applied Sections 3 and 4(3) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, concerning the offence and punishment for land grabbing, and considered the statutory concept of “land grabbing” under Section 2(e).

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the principles permitting quashing where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence, where the proceeding is manifestly attended by mala fides, or where a civil dispute is given the cloak of criminality.

It further held that the doctrine of continuing offence cannot be used to revive stale or concluded private property claims, particularly where the dispute has been adjudicated by a civil court or is otherwise barred by limitation or principles analogous to res judicata.

The Court also held that a screening authority under the Special Act must apply its mind and provide cogent reasons when departing from an adverse police inquiry report.

The Court found that the dispute arose between close family members and concerned property possession, title and partition rather than a straightforward case of land grabbing.

The alleged occupation dated back to 1994, whereas the FIR was registered only in 2021, after the enactment of the 2020 Act and after prior civil litigation had been pursued and allowed to attain finality.

On these facts, the Court held that the criminal process appeared to have been used to revive a stale civil claim and exert pressure after the complainant had not pursued available appellate or other civil remedies.

The State’s contention that possession constituted a continuing offence was rejected in the circumstances, because such a doctrine could not retrospectively convert a settled family property dispute into a criminal land-grabbing case.

The Collector’s order was also found procedurally defective because it disregarded the Deputy Superintendent of Police’s report describing the dispute as civil without recording independent or cogent reasons.

As regards accused Nos. 7, 8 and 9, the materials did not establish possession, title, or any meaningful nexus with the alleged offence; moreover, the complainant’s own brother did not support the allegation that these applicants had taken or stolen property documents.

The proceedings therefore fell within the categories identified in Bhajan Lal relating to absence of a prima facie offence and mala fide or abusive prosecution.

It allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 9153 of 2021, 5861 of 2021 and 7440 of 2021, and quashed FIR C.R. No. 11821011210235 of 2021 registered at Dahod Town Police Station, together with all consequential proceedings, including Sessions Case No. 87 of 2021, insofar as they concerned the applicants.

Rule was made absolute, and the connected civil applications were disposed of as having become infructuous.