DAHYABHAI RATNABHAI SOJITRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of his detention dated 7-8-92 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot, in exercise of his powers under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the 'PASA Act'), on the ground that the petitioner is engaged in certain activities as a property grabber which affect adversely the maintenance of public order.

(2.) It appears from the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner along with the order of detention that the order of detention has been passed against the petitioner in view of his activities as an organiser of two Co-operative Housing Societies, namely, Ankur Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Khodiyar Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The lands involved are original Survey Nos. 257/3 and 696, situated within the revenue limits of Rajkot, and Survery No. 303/1 situated in village Kotharia, within Urban Agglomeration of Rajkot. The allegations are that one Jiviben Gangadas and others were occupants of Survey Nos. 257 and 696. In the implementation of T.P. Scheme No. 5, final Plot Nos. 114 and 115 totally admeasuring 25,220 sq. mtrs. were allotted to them. It is alleged that the petitioner who proposed the formation of the Housing Society named Ankur Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. formed sub-plots without taking necessary permission and sold those plots to different persons. It was also alleged that the petitioner agreed to purchase the land bearing Survey No. 303/1 from the occupant Naran Velji in the name of Khodiyar Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (proposed) and allotted and sold the plots to different persons by receiving consideration thereof. It is alleged in so many words that the lands were agreed to be purchased in the name of the proposed Societies from the original occupants by the petitioner as the organiser of Housing Societies. It is alleged that such lands were agreed to be purchased by him in spite of being aware that they were likely to be declared as surplus under the provision of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and in complicity with the occupant of the land he had taken illegal steps for usurping and disposing of the lands. On the basis of the aforesiad facts, the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to preventively detain the petitioner who was a "property grabber".

(3.) The portion of the definition which is relevant to the present case is "a person who illegally takes possession of any lands not belonging to himself but belonging to Government, local authority or any other person......or enters into or creates illegal tenancies or leave and licence agreements or any other agreements in respect of such lands ......" (Emphasis supplied.)