1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

(District: Morbi)

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1402 of 2022

In the matter of under Articles 14,

20, 21, 254, 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India read with
Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure;

And

In the matter for challenging the

vires to provisions of the Gujarat
land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,
2000 and Gujarat Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Rules, 2020;

And

In the matter between:

(1) Khimjibhai Mavjibhai Parmar

Aged about 82 years, Sex: - Male,
Occupation: - Agriculture,

(2) Hiralal Mavjibhai Parmar

Aged about 65 years, Sex: - Male,
Occupation: - Agriculture
Both having address at
KainKana ni Vaadi,
Avadh Society,
Nr. Small Canal,
Shenala Road,
Morbi.
... Petitioners
 2
(Original Accused no.2 and 1
respectively as per FIR)

VERSUS

1. State of Gujarat
Through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department,
At Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar.

2. Police Inspector
A Division, Morbi City Police Station, Morbi;
District: Morbi.

3. The Collector
Having office at the office of the Collectorate,
Jilla Seva Sadan,
Shobheshwar Road,
Morbi-2.

4. Virjibhai Chhaganbhai Patel

Aged about: Adult, Sex: - Female,
Having address at:
Flat No. 202, Shivam Palace,
Darpan-1,
Ravapar Road,
Morbi.

. …Respondents
(Respondent no.4 is
the Orig.
Complainant)

TO,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE AND THE OTHER
COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE HIGH COURT OF
GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION

OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE
NAMED.
 3

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:

1. The petitioners submit that the petitioners are resident of

India and are entitled to the rights conferred by the
Constitution of India.

2. The petitioners submit that the brief facts leading to the

filing of the present petition are as under:

2.1 That the respondent No.4- Virjibhai Patel had

lodged an FIR being FIR No. 111009695638
registered at A Division, Morbi City Police Station,
Morbi dated 07/06/2022 for the alleged offences
under Sections 4(1), 3 and 5(c) of The Gujarat land
Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2000.

A Copy of the FIR lodged with at A Division,

Morbi City Police Station, Morbi bearing FIR No.
111009695638 of 2022 is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE–A.

2.2 That it is alleged in the said FIR that the respondent

no. 4 - complainant is the owner of land bearing
survey no. 9825A1 situated at Village Madhapar,
Taluka and District: Morbi and is converted the said
land to Non-Agricultural Land, whereas the
petitioners are the owner of the adjacent land
bearing survey no. 9825A1 situated in the southern
direction of the said land of the petitioner and it is
alleged that the petitioner have encroached on plot
 4
no. 1 to 7 on the land of the petitioner. Hence, this
FIR.

2.3 It is submitted that the petitioners were arrested

pursuant to the impugned FIR on date 07/06/2022.
The petitioners had preferred regular bail
application under section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure being Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 493 of 2022 before the Ld. District
and Sessions Court at Morbi, District: Morbi and
vide order dated 21/06/2022 Ld. Sessions Judge
Morbi was pleased to enlarge the petitioners on
regular bail.

A copy of the regular bail application being CRMA

No. 493 of 2022 along with the written objections of
the complainant, Affidavit of the investigation
officer and order dated 21/06/2022 passed by Ld.
Sessions Court Morbi are annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure-B Colly to this petition.

3. The petitioners submit that the respondent No. 4 -

Virjibhai Patel has filed a complaint dated 17/10/2021
under the provisions of the said rules to the committee for
registration of FIR under the provisions of the Gujarat
land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2000 (“said Act” for
short). In pursuance to the said complaint, the learned
committee has ordered inquiry under provisions of the
said Act and Rules.
 5
4. The petitioners submit that the petitioners had appeared
before the authority and filed their reply. Moreover, the
petitioner Khimjibhai Mavjibhai Parmar had also filed a
complaint dated 18/06/2021 addressing to collector Morbi
under the land grabbing act alleging that the respondent
no. 4 has encroached on their land bearing survey no.
9825A1 on the said land giving the plot number 1 to 7
misrepresenting it as if they are situated on his land. It is
pertinent to mention that the said complaint of the
petitioner was filed as per the communication dated
14/10/2021 by the authority and no further action was
taken by the concerned authority.

A copy of the complaint dated 18/06/2021 filed by the

petitioner Mavjibhai Parmar under the Land Grabbing Act
along with the communication by the authority dated
14/10/2021 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C
colly to this petition.

5. It is submitted that the petitioners had preferred civil suit

regarding the land in question before the court of Ld.
Principal Senior Civil Judge Morbi being Regular Civil
Suit No. 110 of 2022 against the respondent no. 4-
Virjibhai Patel.

A copy of the plaint of Regular Civil Suit no. 110 of 2022

is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D to this
petition.
 6
6. The petitioners submit that the petitioners beg to
challenge the vires of the Gujarat land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 2000 and Gujarat Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Rules, 2020 (“said Act and Rules”) framed
thereunder on the following grounds and other grounds as
may be urged at the time of hearing:

GROUNDS

A. The petitioners submit that considering the provisions

of Section 2(d), wherein under the definition of a land
grabber, the land grabber herein is also included viz.,
“also includes the successor in interest”. Thus, the
aforesaid definition clause is against the well settled
principles of law and a person who is a successor in
interest cannot be fastened with Criminal liability and,
therefore also, the aforesaid definition is not in
accordance with law and unconstitutional and ultra
vires.

B. The petitioners submit that as far as the definition

under Section 2(e) pertaining to land grabbing is
concerned, the word viz., “without the use of force” is
also not properly defined and it may happen that since
the dispute is pertaining to land, therefore, any person
may come in possession by proper legal transaction
and, therefore also, the aforesaid definition is also
against the well settled provisions of law and hence,
definition clause of land grabbing is not in accordance
with law.
 7

C. The petitioners submit that Section 4(2) defines

prohibition of land grabbing and Sub-Section (4) of
Section 4, the words “fixed to be in occupation,
otherwise which is as a lawful tenant”, is also not in
accordance with law and unconstitutional since the act
came into force on 29.08.2020 and, therefore, if any
person is having earlier possession of any land by way
of any transaction, even then, the said activity or the
act comes under the provision of land grabbing which
is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the
aforesaid provision is also not in accordance with law
and unconstitutional.

D. The petitioners submit that as far as the Section 7

defining the constitution of special courts is concerned,
the special court is constituted by the State
Government in congruence with the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of the High Court but as per the provisions of
Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the assent of
Governor of the State is required for the appointment
of the Hon'ble District Judge and it is pertinent to note
that there is no reference of the Governor in the whole
Section. Hence, the State Government has reserved
wide powers to appoint any judicial officer of their
choice. Therefore, the aforesaid constitution of Special
Court and appointment of Judge is also in violation of
Article 223 of the Constitution of India.

E. As far as the qualification of Special Judge is

concerned, it is stated in Section 7(5) of the impugned
 8
Act that he should be a Sessions Judge or District
Judge, but no experience of any years is mentioned for
Sessions Judge. The aforesaid clause requires to be
modified to the effect that a minimum service period is
required as has been provided under several other
special Act, which requires minimum service for
appointment as a Special Judge.
F. The petitioners submit that the provisions of Section 9
of the said Act pertains to the procedure and power of
Special court. In Sub-Section (1) of Section 9, it is
stated “whether before or after commencement of this
Act”, it clearly shows that even the past incident of
any transaction and if that incident falls under the
Land Grabbing Act, is against the provisions of Article
20 of the Constitution of India. In this manner, the
provisions of Section 9(2), the decision of Special
Judge is final which is also against the well settled
principles of law since the same cannot be challenged.
As far as Section 9(3) is concerned, the Special Court
has been given the power to follow its own procedure
and here also if the aforesaid clause is continued then,
it will be at the whims and at the caprice of the Special
Judge to follow its own procedure which is against the
well settled principles of law, therefore also, the
aforesaid provision is also not in accordance with law
and unconstitutional and is required to be modified.
Further, the Special Court may decide the civil liability
which is also not correct because there may be several
orders passed by the Civil Court pertaining to the civil
dispute between the parties in connection with
complaint and, therefore also, the authority and power
 9
given to the special court to decide civil liability is
against the well settled principles of law.

G. As far as the Section 9(5) is concerned, the special

court will decide civil and criminal liability, which is
also not in accordance with law as stated above and
even the discretion is given to the special Judge to
keep the trial pending till decision of the Civil Court.
No criteria are described as to in what manner, the
learned Special Judge will keep the trial in abeyance
till the civil court decides the issue and, therefore also,
the aforesaid Section is also not in accordance with
law and unconstitutional.

H. The petitioners submit that as far as Section 9 (7) is

concerned, it is stated as under: “binding on all persons
having interest in such land”. The petitioners submit
that it is well settled law that no decision of a court can
bind any party without giving opportunity of being
heard and accordingly, if any person has interest in
land, then the decision of civil court will be binding to
such person without hearing such party and hence, the
aforesaid section is not in accordance with law and in
violative of principles of natural justice.

I. The petitioners submit that, Section 9 (8) which says

that “any other person who may be in possession of the
property” will include any person having interest, title
or may be the owner by virtue of the order of the civil
court or by any other authority and, therefore also, all
 10
the aforesaid sections are not in accordance with law
and unconstitutional.

J. The petitioners submit that as far as Section 11

pertains to burden of proof is concerned, the word used
are alleged to have been grabbed and such land is
prima facie proved to be land. It is relevant to consider
that when a complaint is filed therein it is always
alleged that the land is grabbed and, therefore, that
poses a reverse burden of proof which may not be put
upon the accused. In the same manner, under Section
11 (2), the proof of source of income is put upon the
accused which is also against the provisions of law
and, therefore also, provisions of Section 11 pertaining
to the burden of proof upon the accused is not in
accordance with law and unconstitutional. It is well
settled that if any burden is cast upon the accused, then
also, it has to be in consonance with the provisions of
the Act and all other facts are required to be
considered and, therefore also, the provisions of
Section 11 are bad in law and against the Constitution
of India. The petitioner submits that even the
provisions of Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian
Evidence Act and has also not been considered while
putting reverse burden by the accused by adding
Section 11 of the impugned Act.

K. The petitioners submit that Section 15 of the said Act

pertains has overriding effect over other existing laws.
The petitioner submits that by virtue of the aforesaid
provision of the said Act, even the decree and order of
 11
a court or any other Tribunal or authority is nullified.
Therefore also, the aforesaid provision is not in
accordance with law as it takes away the effect of a
valid order passed by a court of law or a decree or an
agreement or even custom. Therefore also, the said
provision is ultra vires and the said Act is not in
accordance with law.

L. The petitioners submit that as far as Section 17 is

concerned, the entire Section is against the well settled
principles of law and against Article 20 of the
Constitution of India because it has also included an
offence pertaining to and Act prior to the
commencement of the impugned Act and, therefore
also, such a provision is against the Constitution of
India.

For example, if any person has bona fide purchased

the grabbed land without knowledge i.e., a grabbed
land, then also he will be termed to be a land grabber
and, therefore, for criminal offence, the offence is
required to be charged after the coming into force of
the Act and not prior thereto. Therefore also, the
provisions of Section 17 are not in accordance with
law and unconstitutional. It is pertinent to bring to the
notice of this Hon’ble Court that in the present case
also the dispute pertains to right to way that was
already existing over the disputed land that exist since
decades. The petitioners have not grabbed any land,
 12
thus, therefore, also considering the present case is
required to be allowed.

It is also relevant to note that whenever any

provision is made, then the said provision has to be in
consonance with the other provisions of law and in
continuity, of the chapters but the aforesaid Section 17
has been incorporated after Section 16 i.e., after
completion of the Act, therefore, the aforesaid
provision has been subsequently added after the Act is
made and, therefore also, the same is required to be
considered by this Hon'ble Court to access the validity
of the impugned Act.

M. The petitioners submit that as far as the rules are

concerned, there is no provision as to who will be the
member of committee and resultantly, the State
Government has inherent powers to appoint committee
of their choice and to frame any person as an accused.
Therefore also, the extensive definition of committee
is to be made and who will be the committee member
is required to be incorporated in the rules.

N. The petitioners submit that as far as Rule 5 (6) is

concerned, it is directed that the Prant Officer or the
officer authorized by Collector shall submit a report to
the Collector within 20 days. The present Act is both a
civil liability and a criminal offence and, therefore, it
is incumbent upon the inquiry officer to hear the
suspected accused against whom the allegations are
made but there is not provision in Rule 5 or in the Act
 13
that the suspected accused should be heard as a matter
of right and, therefore, appropriate provisions of
giving hearing to the suspected accused is required to
be made. It may happen that the complainant produces
whatever documents and evidence is not in favor of
him and withhold important documents and evidence,
etc. to frame the accused and to take the land back and,
therefore also, the hearing to the suspected accused is
required to be given as stated earlier and shall be
incorporated in Rules.
O. The petitioners submit that the Act is fastening both
civil and criminal aspects. Hence, registration of FIR
i.e., criminal prosecution against any person can be
initiated. Further, it takes away the liberty of a citizen
and is a serious matter, therefore, appropriate hearing
before registration of FIR is required to be given to the
suspected accused and, thereafter, the committee may
take its own view whether FIR is to be registered or
not. But it should be mandatory that the suspected
accused is required to be heard.

P. As far as Rule 5 (7) is concerned, the same is also not

in accordance with law and unconstitutional in as
much as, if any person is in occupation and
inadvertently if the application for renewal is not
made, then the said person will also be termed as a
land grabber, therefore also, the aforesaid Rule 5 (7) is
required to be struck down.

Q. The petitioners submit that Rule 5 (10) stipulates that

after registration of FIR a final report i.e., charge sheet
 14
/ police report as defined under Section 173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is to be filed within a
period of 30 days. The aforesaid provision does not
give sufficient time to the investigating officer to
complete the investigation, where there are
complicated facts involved pertaining to the grabbed
land, therefore, it takes away the right of the victim
and it adversely benefits the accuse. Therefore, the
aforesaid provision of filing final report within 30 days
is required to be extended for a period of 90 days in
view of the punishment provided which is maximum
upto 14 years. It should be in consonance with Section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the final
report is to be filed within a period of 30 days, then the
investigating officer will be under tremendous pressure
to file the final report and it may derail the
investigation or the sufficient evidence may not be
collected against the accused within the short time of
30 days. It is relevant to consider that in other special
Act, the provision of filing charge sheet, the period has
been extended, for example, under the NDPS Act, the
period of filing the final charge sheet i.e., final report
is of 180 days and, therefore, this shows that the
aforesaid period is required to be extended from 30
days to 90 days.

R. The petitioners submit that as far as the form which is

to be submitted by the complainant under Rule 3 (1) of
the said Rules is concerned, several other columns are
required to be incorporated in the said form viz.
 15

1. Civil litigations, since there is reference in the Act

about the order passed by the civil court and that
special court will decide even the title, etc. and civil
liability while trying a criminal trial, therefore, it is
necessary that a separate column be incorporated
pertaining to civil litigation, if any orders are passed
therein, the status of the case, etc. can also be
submitted alongwith the form and producing all
documents.

2. Whether any order is passed by the Government or

any other statutory authority giving the land of the
suspected accused. It happens that the litigants are
not coming to the court with clean hands and,
therefore, such a claim is required to be
incorporated if there are any Government orders or
any other orders by the Government authority is
passed pertaining to the grabbed land.

3. There should be yet another column as to how the

land is grabbed and show the cause of offence,
where the complainant has to give details as to how
the land grabbed by the accused came in possession
and from which date.

4. There should also be a column regarding actual

possession of the land in question. Ultimately, the
grabbing of the land may be subject to possession of
land but there is no column at present as to who is
 16
holding the possession of the land and, therefore,
the same is required to be incorporated.

5. The form is required to be submitted on affidavit

i.e., on oath and if any information submitted in the
form are found to be false, then appropriate
provisions of prosecution against the applicant is
required to be initiated and necessary provisions
under the Act and Rules about the same are required
to be made so that there may not be any false filing
of complaint under the said Act and Rules.
6. In column No.12, it is also stated that any other
property which the applicant intends to furnish but
has not so far, the applicant will furnish the
necessary documents which are in favour and,
therefore also, the aforesaid clauses are required to
be added.

S. The Petitioner submits that the Section 27, 65, 111

and 112 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides for a
statutory period of limitation that is allowed for
possession of immovable property or any interest in
the same which is a period of 12 years in the case of
private property and a period of 30 years for public
property, from the date the trespasser occupies the
property. Further, note that Section 27 read with
Article 65 of the Limitation Act extinguishes the
right of a lawful owner in respect of land or
immovable property or for such persons who are
claiming Right to Way over the disputed land.
 17
Therefore, the provisions of the impugned Act are
repugnant to and in conflict with the
abovementioned provisions of limitation because the
said impugned act does not provide any remedy to
the occupier or the persons like the present
petitioners who are claiming right to way since
years together, it declares the person guilty who
have occupied the land before the commencement of
this act. The petitioner submits that since the Special
Court under Section 7 of the impugned Act and
other provisions have been vested with the power of
deciding the civil liability and also the title,
ownership, etc. and, therefore, the aforesaid power
is contrary to the provisions of the Limitation Act
since it is barred by law of limitation and there is no
extent or explanation or proviso saving the
provisions of the Limitation Act. Therefore also, the
said act is ultra vires and illegal.

T. The Petitioner submits that the Section 4 of the

impugned Act states that the convicted person
should be punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than ten years but which may
extend to fourteen years and with fine which may
extend to Jantri value of such properties violates the
doctrine of proportionality which has been used by
the apex court since years. It is pertinent to note that
the doctrine of proportionality means that the
administrative action should not be more drastic
than it ought to be for obtaining the desired result.
The petitioner submits that even the minimum
 18
punishment which can be imposed in the said Act is
not proportionate to the Limitation Act of land
grabbing even if proved, therefore also, the
punishment is disproportionate to the Limitation
Act. Thus, the petitioner submits that the aforesaid
provision of the impugned act is not in consonance
with the well-established principles of doctrine of
proportionality and therefore also, the said Act is not
in accordance with the principles of law and justice
and are hence ultra vires.

U. The Petitioner submits that the impugned Act even

limits the scope of interference by this hon’ble court
though being the highest court of law in the State.
The Petitioner submits that unlike the Karnataka
Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2011, wherein the
court can proceed to rehear the case in a manner
provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
on a flip side the impugned Act in Section 9(2)
states that in respect of alleged act of land grabbing
determination of question of title and ownership, or
lawful possession of any land grabbed under the
said Act, shall be subject to the provisions of the
impugned Act itself. And further, it is very crucial to
note that it also states that the decision of the special
court under the said Act will be final and there is no
option to appeal, a revision or a review of such order
of the special court. Accordingly, the only option
left with a person will be writ of certiorari. Hence,
the impugned act curbs the cope of interference and
 19
wide powers vested in the hon’ble High Court in the
Constitution of India by limiting the power of
adjudication with the special courts. And therefore
also, the said impugned Act is ultra vires and
unconstitutional.

V. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has also

found out from various sources whether any debate
has taken place in the State Legislative Assembly
before the passing of the impugned Act and rules
but petitioner could not find any such material and,
therefore, if such a debate has not taken place,
therefore also, the impugned Act is ultra vires of the
Constitution.

W. That even otherwise no case is made out against the

present petitioners under the Land Grabbing Act. the
petitioners are the persons who claiming their right
to way over the disputed part of the land, the
petitioners are also pursuing their legal remedy
under the Law and have filed civil suits in order to
protect their rights. Thus, under no stretch of
imagination, the same can be termed as Land
Grabbing.

X. That the petitioners had also filed their complaint

before the authorities under the Act, however, the
same was disposed on flimsy grounds. However, as
an when the complaint was made by the present
complainant the same was immediately taken into
consideration and it was ordered to lodged the
 20
present FIR, thus, this itself speaks volume on the
conduct of the committee examining such
complaints. It is pertinent to note that the selective
conduct of the committee formed under Act itself is
arbitrary and thus, even considering the same, the
powers under the Act are absurd and unreasonable.

Y. The petitioner submits that even the well settled

procedure for enacting an Act is also not followed
while enacting the impugned Act and Rules and,
therefore, the respondent, more particularly
respondent No.1 be directed to put on record the
procedure followed while enacting the Act so that
the petitioner can make proper submissions about
the same.

7. The petitioners reserve their right to amend, rescind, add

or alter any of the grounds of this petition whenever
required, at any stage of the proceedings.

8. The petitioners have no other alternative efficacious

remedy in law but to approach this Hon'ble Court by way
of this petition.

9. The petitioners have not filed any petition, appeal or

application before any other Court including the Supreme
Court of India.

10. Therefore, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased:
 21
(A) To allow this petition.

(B) To issue a writ of certiorari and/or writ of

mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction to quash and set aside, section 2 (e) of
the Act, and hold the same to be unconstitutional,
while setting aside the impugned FIR being FIR No.
111009695638 of 2022 dated 07/06/2022 registered
at A Division, Morbi City Police Station, Morbi and
all subsequent proceedings thereunder;

(C) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition

be pleased to stay further proceedings pf FIR being
FIR No. 111009695638 of 2022 dated 07/06/2022
registered at A Division, Morbi City Police Station,
Morbi.

(D) To pass any other and further order as may be

deemed fit and proper.

AND FOR THE ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE

PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL FOREVER
PRAY.

Place: Ahmedabad

Date: 01/07/2022

(SONAKSHI AGARWAL)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
 22

AFFIDAVIT

I, Khimjibhai Mavjibhai Parmar Aged: 82 years, Occupation:

Agriculturist. Having address as: KainKana ni Vaadi, Avadh
Society, Nr. Small Canal, Shenala Road, Morbi. the petitioner
herein, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

case and I am competent to depose what is stated in the
application.

2. I say that I have gone through a copy of the application

and I solemnly affirm that what is stated in para 1-5 is
true to the best of my information and belief and I believe
the same to be true and correct and what is stated in paras
6 (A-Y) are the grounds and submissions of law and what
is stated para no. 11 is the prayer clause.
 23

SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED AT AHMEDABAD ON THIS 01

DAY OF JULY, 2022

-------------------
DEPONENT

Explained in Gujarati
to the deponent and
Identified by me Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

(District: Morbi)

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1402 of 2022

Khimjibhai Mavjibhai Parmar and Ors ... Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Gujarat and Ors … Respondents

INDEX

Ann Particulars Pages Nos.

Nos
- Synopsis
- Memo of Petition
“A” A Copy of the FIR lodged with at A Division,
 24

Morbi City Police Station, Morbi bearing FIR

No. 111009695638 of 2022.

“B” A copy of the regular bail application being

CRMA No. 493 of 2022 along with the
written objections of the complainant,
Affidavit of the investigation officer and
order dated 21/06/2022 passed by Ld.
Sessions Court, Morbi.

“C” A copy of the complaint dated 18/06/2021

filed by the petitioner Mavjibhai Parmar
under the Land Grabbing Act along with the
communication by the authority dated
14/10/2021.

“D” A copy of the plaint of Regular Civil Suit no.

110 of 2022.
 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

(District: Morbi)

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1402 of 2022

Khimjibhai Mavjibhai Parmar and Ors ... Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Gujarat and Ors … Respondents

SYNOPSIS