MAHENDRASINH MANGALSINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 10.12.2010 passed by the respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of powers under Sub -Section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act') at pre -detention stage. Vide the judgment and order dated 24.12.2013 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1495 of 2013, the Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter to decide afresh after calling upon the detention order and grounds for detention. Accordingly, after calling upon the detention order for Court's perusal, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) BRIEF facts as arising from the petition are that an F.I.R. being I -C.R. No. 287 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered before Bhuj Taluka police station. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that at village: Khera, land bearing Survey No. 136 admeasuring 3106.10 sq.mtrs. was sold by way of Registered Sale Deed on 09.03.2007 for consideration of Rs. 40,000/ - in favour of one Mr. Hirji Velji Vekaria and since the same being Government land, he was authorised to file the complaint.

(3.) AN affidavit -in -reply is filed by the respondent No. 2 contending that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under the law. In the said reply, it is stated by the respondent No. 2 that an order of detention is passed by the authority under the said Act against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has preferred this petition at a pre -mature stage apprehending that the respondent authorities would invoke the provisions of the said Act against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2, the present petition has been filed with misconception of facts and law at the stage of pre -execution of detention order. It was contended that the petitioner was required to surrender before challenging the order of detention which is not yet served to him because the petitioner has remained absconded. It is submitted that an F.I.R. being II -C.R. No. 3079 of 2011 has been lodged against the petitioner before Bhuj Taluka police station on 19.05.2011 for the same incident for which, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. and this Court has issued notice and granted ad -interim relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a property grabber, who has grabbed the land of the Government and has also manipulated with the revenue records by inserting his name in the same and thereafter, sold the said land to the other person and got monetary benefits. It was further contended that since the detaining authority on a subjective satisfaction, after perusal of relevant materials placed before it including the documents relating to one offence registered against the petitioner that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention was passed against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2, the detaining authority, after carefully considering, pursuing, examining and applying its mind to all the relevant materials placed before it as well as legal provisions applicable to the same, was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is a 'property grabber' as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act and hence, passed the order of detention against the petitioner to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Along with the affidavit -in -reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the State has placed on record detention order No. PASA/DTN/34/2010 dated 10.12.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhuj -Kutch for Court's perusal.