Gujarat High Court Asks State To Redress Grievance Of Muslim Shop Owners Allegedly Denied Access To Property By Neighbours
The Gujarat High Court has directed the State to redress the grievance of two Muslim shop owners who were allegedly prevented by their neighbours from entering their commercial property in Vadodara despite judicial orders, underscoring the State’s “duty to maintain the law and order”.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar in his order observed that the two petitioners Onali Dholakawala and Iqbal Tinwala are owners of the property in question who wanted to enjoy the same and had approached the state authorities, however till date nothing had been done.
It thereafter said, “In view of the facts of the case and looking to the grievance of the petitioner at Annexure-A, the respondent authority concerned is hereby directed to redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law as it is the duty of the State to maintain the law and order. If any adverse outcome is there, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum”.
The petitioners claimed they were continuously prevented from entering their property despite the Vadodara Mahanagar Sevasadan (VMSS) order asking them to repair the property condition. The commercial property situated in Vadodara was earlier covered under the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 (Disturbed Areas Act, 1991)
The petitioners sought directions to the respondents–which includes the police commissioner, police inspector and State of Gujarat–to facilitate and effectuate them to enter and use their commercial property, repair and rehabilitate it.
The plea states that the property of the petitioners was subject matter of the Disturbed Areas Act wherein they had moved a plea before the Deputy Collector however the same was rejected in 2017. Against this they preferred an appeal before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department in June 2018 which was also rejected.
The petitioners thereafter moved the high court which granted them relief in 2020 and the sale deed of the petitioners was registered. Despite this order, the plea claims, petitioners were not allowed to enter their own property and faced continued threats from “neighbours and politically influential people”.
In the meantime, a review petition was filed by certain private persons challenging the high court’s previous order which was rejected by the high court with costs of Rs. 50,000 on February 2023. The petitioners claimed that they kept receiving notices from the municipal corporation that the place is dilapidated and dangerous for their neighbours. However since the petitioners were not allowed to enter the premises they could not take any steps.
The plea claims that when the petitioners tried to enter the property they were obstructed. The petitioners then sought police protection to enter the property and made various representations and had also made a written complaint against accused neighbours; however neither protection was granted nor any action was taken. The plea claims that the petitioners’ neighbours and local corporators are creating hurdles for the petitioners.
The plea states that the petitioners preferred another representation to the Collector in April 2024 seeking police protection.
After looking at the petitioners’ grievance addressed to the state authorities the Court then directed them to ‘redress grievance’ of property owners and disposed of the plea.
Case Title: Onali Ezazuddin Dholakawala & Anr. vs Police Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number: SCA 14057 of 2024
