HC quashes order denying property sale under Disturbed Areas Act

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court quashed a deputy collector's order rejecting permission to sell property in the Jamalpur area in the Walled City of Ahmedabad under the Disturbed Areas Act. The govt official had denied sale on the ground that if the Hindu owners were allowed to sell the house to Muslims, it might jeopardise communal harmony in the area.After quashing the order, the HC directed the officer to take a fresh decision on the application for sale permission by considering only two aspects: ‘free consent' of the sellers that they were not selling the property under coercion, and ‘fair value' that the sellers were getting the market value.
In this case, the property in question was rented by five Hindu owners to a Muslim family in 1978. The long dispute was settled, and the owners agreed to sell the property to the possessors and decided to execute a sale deed at the prevailing market rate. Since the house falls in the area where the govt invoked the Gujarat Prohibition for Transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991, restricting sale/purchase of property without prior permission, the sellers and buyers on March 26, 2024 applied for the mandatory permission from the deputy city collector (East).On Oct 19, 2024, the officer rejected the permission by citing reports from the circle officer and the police inspector suggesting that the sale permission might disturb the population equilibrium of Hindus and Muslims and jeopardise communal harmony in the area.This brought nine buyers of the single family and five sellers to the high court, where their counsel Kashyap Joshi pointed out that only the Muslim population was left in the area, and according to the provisions of Section 5(3)(b) of the Act, the authorities had to take into consideration only two aspects — free consent and fair value — while deciding on granting the permission. However, the officer wrongly relied on other aspects.After the hearing, Justice Aniruddha Mayee said, "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."