AHMEDABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Gujarat govt after the Gujarat high court’s order upholding the state’s law aimed at curbing land grabbing has been challenged. According to the petitioners’ advocate, Virat Popat, the apex court also stayed proceedings against the petitioners, who are three brothers from Rajkot. They are facing land grabbing allegations under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.
This came after the HC on May 9 rejected a slew of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law and lifted the stay on proceedings. The HC clarified that the legislation is not repugnant to central laws and therefore did not need presidential assent.
One of the major challenges to the law was that the state govt had not obtained the president’s nod, though it has an overriding effect and its provisions are not in consonant to many other laws.
Rejecting this argument, the HC had observed, “We do not find any good ground to hold the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 and its allied rules as unconstitutional. Considering the pith and substance of the Land Grabbing Act, we hold that it is relatable to entries 18, 64 and 65 of List II of VII Schedule (of the Constitution of India) and as such there is no question of repugnancy to the central laws such as the Limitation Act or CPC or CrPC or Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act or the Evidence Act.”
Another major objection to this law and the HC’s upholding of it was that this law allows prosecution of a person even after a civil court issues a decree in his favour once there is valid reason to believe that the decree was obtained fraudulently.
The challenge to this law has also been on the aspect of proportionality of punishment, which is 10 years in jail. The HC upheld this by saying that prescribing punishment is better left to the wisdom of the legislature, “The wisdom of legislature must be given due regard and respect, it is for legislation (sic) being representative of people to decide as to what is good or bad for them. Court cannot sit over its wisdom. Consequently, the 2020 Act cannot be said ultra vires on aspect of proportionality. The Act cannot be challenged on the plea of harsh and disproportionate punishment. We hold that the Act is not violative of Articles 13, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”
