Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act was rebuffed in the Gujarat Supreme Court on Friday . The petition argues that the Act did not provide residents with a means to express opposition to a district being delimitated as a communally polluted area .
AHMEDABAD (indicates): The Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act was rebuffed in the Gujarat Supreme Court on Friday, citing that it did not provide residents with a means to express opposition to a district being delimitated as a communally polluted area.Advocate Jitendra Malkan, the petitioner, has filed the petition arguing that the Gujarat Prohibition of the Transfer of Immovable Property and the Provision for Tenants' Protection from Eviction from Premises in the Disturbed Areas Act are in violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice.This is because the laws of this state state that the authorities are not obligated to draw opposition from the public before naming a place as communally disturbed.The Gujarat Town Planning Act, according to Malkan, has a provision that ensures that the authorities must consult with the property owner before making any decision about a land or area that is likely to change a property owner's status.The Disturbed Areas Act establishes certain limitations on land resales, which impact the market rates.However, this statute does not contain a provision requiring that a person make a suggestion or objection before delimiting the geographic zone covered by this Act.According to the statute, the authority can do so without inviting criticism or opposition from the public, and only on the basis of fear on the part of the public that riots and violence take place in the area.He argued that this is in violation of the natural justice principle. The petitioner's counsel was urged to provide the transcript of previous litigation, according to the court.The court also inquired into other cases battling the legality of the law's provisions.In response, the state government reported that two petitions are pending in which the 2019 version was rejected because it was in violation of the spirit of plurality and plurality.Jamiat Ulama Hind, a Muslim outfit, sought a suspension from 3(1)(2) and (3) of the amended Act, which allows the authorities to permanently declare a geographicly disturbed area only on the grounds that people of a given community would purchase property from another community. In addition, some notices identifying certain areas as communally disturbed have also been challenged.The case has been posted for review by the HC on September 6.