SC upholds Gujarat HC order quashing FIR under Disturbed Areas Act

The Supreme Court has upheld an August 2025 order of the Gujarat High Court that quashed an FIR registered against Ahmedabad-based businessman Ahmad Allarakha Patel under the Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act. The apex court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision, thereby dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by the complainant, Pranav Harish Sheth.

The case stemmed from an FIR lodged at Sarkhej police station on November 29, 2021, in which Sheth alleged that Patel was in illegal possession of a land parcel in Ahmedabad’s Sarkhej area. Sheth claimed the land originally belonged to his father, Harish Sheth, and that after his father’s death in January 2006, his name was entered into the revenue records in June 2007, making him the lawful owner.

According to the complaint, Patel had allegedly constructed godowns and a mosque on the land, which falls within a residential zone, and had purportedly earned financial gains without securing the mandatory prior permission of the District Collector as required under the Disturbed Areas Act. Patel had earlier been booked in 2020 under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act in connection with the same dispute, Indian Express reported.

Sheth had first approached the District Collector of Ahmedabad under the Land Grabbing Act. Based on an order issued in January 2021 by the Member Secretary of the District Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Committee and the Resident Additional Collector, an FIR was registered by the police. Subsequently, Sheth claimed to have learned that the disputed land was located in a notified disturbed area and alleged that Patel had executed rental and other agreements without obtaining the collector’s prior approval.

Patel’s counsel, however, argued before the Gujarat High Court that a City Deputy Collector’s order issued in October 2019—directing restoration of possession of the land to the complainant and registration of an FIR—had already been stayed by a coordinate bench of the High Court, with the stay later confirmed by a division bench.

In its August 2025 ruling, the Gujarat High Court accepted the argument that the land transactions in question had taken place in 1984 and 1987, when the Disturbed Areas Act was not applicable to the property. The court held that the Act could not be applied retrospectively and that the Deputy Collector’s order could not form the basis for lodging the FIR.

The High Court observed that the FIR appeared to be a vexatious proceeding and amounted to an abuse of the legal process. It noted that the complainant seemed to have attempted to circumvent the High Court’s earlier stay order, describing the filing of the FIR as malicious and legally abusive. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.

On January 9, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed Sheth’s petition, stating that it was not inclined to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s judgment.