JAJANTILAL PRABHASHANKER BAKHAI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained as per the order of the District Magistrate Rajkot District dated 17.11.1992 describing the petitioner to be a property grabber. For this as per grounds of detention from page 26 onwards running into 18 typewritten pages the District Magistrate has been given several details of the detenu having entered into transaction of sale or agreement to sell in relation to land covered by the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regualtion) Act 1976 which came to be subsequently declared surplus as per order dated 31.8.1991. Before that somewhere in the year 1981 the detenu had entered into some transaction and thereafter so far as the land covered by the provisions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is concerned though notification came to be issued under section 10(3) in the year 1991 after the said 1981 transaction the detenu had not entered into any transaction.

(2.) In this background if we view the grounds of detention and the detention order the question would certainly arise as to what was the imminent need for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order. At page 41 conclusions are recorded. However they relate to complicated situation which has arisen in view of various transactions that have been entered into by various plot holders may be owneres of buildings or tenaments. Obviously with these subsequent transactions the detenu had nothing to do because he had severed the link with the said 1981 sale transaction and the persons who purchased the land from him had created some interest and thereafter if complications had arisen obviously the detenu cannot be linked with it.

(3.) It is therefore clear that there is no imminent need disclosed from the grounds of detention for detaining the petitioner. Moreover the declaration under Section 10(3) of the year 1991 as well as the complaint said to have been filed in the year 1989 cannot be said to be relevant to the question of imminent need for detaining the petitioner. It is therefore clear that the impugned order sufferes from the vice of non- application of mind and hence it is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. Accordingly rule is made absolute. Petition Allowed.