Ahmedabad: A plea seeking a stay on a single-bench judgement of the Gujarat High Court that allowed the Hindus to transfer property to Muslims in Vadodara was dismissed by the High Court on Wednesday. A third-party independent witness appealed against the sale of property from Hindus to Muslims in a Hindu-dominated area governed by the Disturbed Areas Act.
The bench upheld the decision of a single-judge court, which had previously rejected the objection against the property transfer.
The court criticized the witnesses for their inconsistent and contradictory stances during the proceedings. It was revealed that the witnesses had initially consented to the property sale back in 2016 but later changed their position, claiming they were coerced into signing a blank proforma.
The witnesses also argued that they were not neighbours to the property, contradicting their earlier statements. This shift in stance raised questions about the witnesses' credibility and intentions.
The case revolves around a property sale that occurred in 2016, where a shop owned by Hindu sellers was transferred to individuals belonging to the Muslim community. The sale was conducted under the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, also known as the Disturbed Areas Act.
The witnesses' objection was based on the contention that the property was sold against their will and the value was not fair.
The High Court's 2020 ruling had already upheld the legality of the property sale, setting aside previous decisions by local authorities that rejected the transfer application. The witnesses, known as "panchas," sought a review of this decision, but their plea was dismissed by the court earlier this year.
The court not only rejected their appeal but also imposed financial penalties on the witnesses for what was deemed a questionable motive.
The Muslim proprietors of the property faced their own challenges after successfully registering the sale. Neighbours reportedly hindered their efforts to renovate and repair the property, preventing its occupancy
During the recent hearing, the division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee, dismissed the witnesses' appeal, asserting that their claims of misrepresentation were unfounded.
The bench emphasized that the witnesses' initial consent to the sale in 2016 indicated their awareness of the situation. The court questioned the witnesses' credibility, suggesting that their evolving statements cast doubt on their reliability.