The Gujarat High Court upholds the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, which prescribes a minimum jail term of 10 years

In a landmark ruling, the Gujarat High Court today upheld the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, along with the rules thereunder. The law still needs to be approved by the president.

The ruling came from a bench consisting of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee, which ruled on a series of more than 150 petitions challenging the law.

The division bench held that the Land Grabbing Act, 2020, and its associated rules are not unconstitutional, rejecting claims that they violate several articles of the Indian Constitution.

In its ruling, the court stated: “With the above discussion on every aspect of the inquiry into the issue of considering the validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2020 on the issues raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any proper basis to hold the Gujarat. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2020 and the Rules, 2020 made therein as unconstitutional contrary to Article 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India is as under:

Considering the gist and content of the Land Grabbing Act 2020, we are of the view that it is relatable to Entries 18, 64 and 65 of List II of Schedule VII (of the Constitution of India) and as such there is no aversion to the Central laws such as the Limitation Act, 1963, Civil Procedure Act, 1908, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.”

“No matter how agitated the petitioners are, in the absence of abhorrence, the Act 2020 cannot be said to be affected by Article 254 of the Constitution of India in the absence of presidential assent. The challenge to the Land Grabbing Act, 2020 on the ground of manifest arbitrariness violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India by treating unequals with equals is dismissed, taking note of several provisions of the Land Grabbing Act which appear to have a rationale that is in line with the purpose and purpose of the Act of 2020, which is to curb land grabbing activities in the State of Gujarat,” the Court added.

The Court further held that the Land Grabbing Act 2020 cannot be said to be contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution and its provisions are not contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution and that the procedure of civil and criminal processes provided for in the contested legislation cannot be violated. one might say that this is apparently arbitrary.

“The law cannot be challenged on the grounds of harsh and disproportionate penalties. We are of the opinion that the law does not conflict with Articles 13, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.” the Court ruled.

With regard to imposing a minimum sentence of ten years for land grabbing, the Court affirmed the wisdom of the legislature in stating that it is the prerogative of elected representatives to determine what is in the best interests of the people.

It emphasized, “While testing the validity of the Land Grabbing Act 2020 on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality for imposing a minimum sentence of ten years for land grabbing, it is concluded that the wisdom of the legislature should be given due credence as legislation is representative of people have to decide what is good or bad for them because it is supposed to know and be aware of people’s needs.

“The Court cannot judge his wisdom. Accordingly, the Act of 2020 cannot be said to be violative of Articles 13, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the doctrine of proportionality and cannot be declared invalid on the ground that the penalty prescribed is harsh, disproportionate and is random. The challenge to the validity of the 2020 Rules framed under the Land Grabbing Act 2020 is proving to be infeasible.” the Court further ruled

The bench also pointed out that similar legislation is being enforced elsewhere, especially in Assam and Karnataka.

“On a comparative reading of the Gujarat Act 2020 with the pari materia legislation enacted by the State of Assam, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, we find that the validity of the pari materia provisions has been upheld by the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court of Assam in challenging the state legislature. The only distinction raised was regarding the requirement of presidential assent granted by us. …Consequently, all subpoena requests in this class deserve to be dismissed as devoid of merit and are dismissed accordingly,” the Court concluded.

Case Title: Kamlesh Jivanlal Dave and others v. State of Gujarat and others

LL citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 64