Ahmedabad : Gujarat The High Court came down heavily on the state administration for implementing the provisions of its newly created anti-landing laws for disputes relating to private properties and seldom enforcing the law for encroachments on the government. Earth.
Justice Paresh Upadhyay was hearing four petitions challenging the order of the Amreli District Magistrate in which the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act was implemented.passed) after registering a case against the people under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. They were branded as land grabbers for having a hut on a plot of private land. The judge said, “These are all personal disputes. Show me at least one case of trespass. government land”
The judge further remarked, “There are many land grabbing cases including disputes between tenants and zamindars. Even dice are used to evict tenants. See Gauchar (pasture) of land.” What are you saying. hotels Being built on the side of the highway. Show me a case of land grabbing on government land.”
The court also observed, “District magistrates are very much excited to enter into private land disputes, whether permissible or not, but not in disputes over government land. If they take action against encroachment on government land, then the purpose (of the law) will be served.”
The judge criticized the recent publicity by the government about the number of FIRs registered under land grabbing laws.
In the present case, the judges became furious when a reply filed by a government authority tried to justify the call for dice on the ground that even if a certain female dice captive was evicted, she would still need a lawyer. help can be found. But applying for bail for his release would be a time-consuming affair for him. The judge read aloud the affidavit to a public prosecutor and asked why the government official should not be asked to show cause why criminal proceedings for contempt of court should not be initiated against him for obstructing the administration of justice. .
The High Court has reserved its order on all the four petitions.
Justice Paresh Upadhyay was hearing four petitions challenging the order of the Amreli District Magistrate in which the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act was implemented.passed) after registering a case against the people under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. They were branded as land grabbers for having a hut on a plot of private land. The judge said, “These are all personal disputes. Show me at least one case of trespass. government land”
The judge further remarked, “There are many land grabbing cases including disputes between tenants and zamindars. Even dice are used to evict tenants. See Gauchar (pasture) of land.” What are you saying. hotels Being built on the side of the highway. Show me a case of land grabbing on government land.”
The court also observed, “District magistrates are very much excited to enter into private land disputes, whether permissible or not, but not in disputes over government land. If they take action against encroachment on government land, then the purpose (of the law) will be served.”
The judge criticized the recent publicity by the government about the number of FIRs registered under land grabbing laws.
In the present case, the judges became furious when a reply filed by a government authority tried to justify the call for dice on the ground that even if a certain female dice captive was evicted, she would still need a lawyer. help can be found. But applying for bail for his release would be a time-consuming affair for him. The judge read aloud the affidavit to a public prosecutor and asked why the government official should not be asked to show cause why criminal proceedings for contempt of court should not be initiated against him for obstructing the administration of justice. .
The High Court has reserved its order on all the four petitions.
.