Gujarat High Court Overturns Property Sale Denial in Ahmedabad
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an order by a deputy collector that rejected permission for the sale of a property in the Jamalpur area of Ahmedabad's Walled City under the Disturbed Areas Act. The official had denied the sale on grounds that allowing Hindu owners to sell to Muslims might jeopardise communal harmony in the locality.
Court Directs Fresh Decision Based on Legal Criteria
After setting aside the order, the High Court directed the officer to reconsider the application for sale permission, focusing solely on two key aspects as per the law:
- Free Consent: Ensuring the sellers are not acting under coercion.
- Fair Value: Confirming the sellers receive market value for the property.
This ruling emphasises strict adherence to legal provisions, disregarding extraneous factors.
Background of the Property Dispute
The property in question has been rented by five Hindu owners to a Muslim family since 1978. After a long-standing dispute was resolved, the owners agreed to sell the property to the tenants at the prevailing market rate. However, since the house is located in an area governed by the Gujarat Prohibition for Transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991, prior permission is required for any sale or purchase.
On March 26, 2024, both sellers and buyers applied for mandatory permission from the deputy city collector (East). On October 19, 2024, the officer rejected the application, citing reports from the circle officer and police inspector. These reports suggested that granting permission might disturb the population equilibrium between Hindus and Muslims and risk communal harmony.
Legal Challenge and Court Proceedings
This rejection prompted nine buyers from the single family and the five sellers to approach the High Court. Their counsel, Kashyap Joshi, argued that the area now predominantly has a Muslim population. He pointed out that under Section 5(3)(b) of the Act, authorities must only consider free consent and fair value when deciding on permission, not other factors.
During the hearing, Justice Aniruddha Mayee observed that the deputy collector's order failed to address the provisions of Section 5(3)(b). The judge stated, "In the impugned order, the respondent No 1 — city deputy collector has not rendered any finding in terms of the provisions of Section 5(3)(b) of the Act. The impugned order was passed on considerations which are dehors the provisions of Section 5(3)(b) of the said Act. The impugned order is therefore bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside."
This decision underscores the importance of legal compliance in property transactions under sensitive regulations, ensuring decisions are based solely on statutory criteria rather than subjective concerns.
