Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court issued notice to state govt over a petition complaining that the district authorities insist on taking prior permission for sale of property by Hindus to a Muslim, though the property does not fall under the notified disturbed areas or within 500 metres of their periphery.The case involves a 387sq foot commercial property in Dariyapur-Kazipur area of Ahmedabad. Its owners – Bharat Panchal and his brother Praful Panchal – want to sell the property to Salim Makwana for Rs 40 lakh. The Panchal brothers had bought the property from a Muslim in 2007, and they did not require any prior permission then because the property does not fall under a notified disturbed area.However, state govt came out with a notification in 2023 that requires parties to such a property transaction to furnish a certificate issued by jurisdictional revenue authority ascertaining that the property does not fall within a 500 metre distance of the area notified under the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision of Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act. The law prohibits property transactions without prior govt permission in this buffer zone as well.Accordingly, the parties applied to mamlatdar and executive magistrate at Asarwa for the certificate on Jan 2. The mamlatdar asked the Talati-cum-mantri to submit a report and a junior revenue official submitted a report to the mamlatdar on Jan 13 stating that the property does not fall within the prohibited buffer zone. However, it contained his opinion, “Since the buyers and sellers are from different communities, permission from the city deputy collector, east, is necessary.”On Jan 20, mamlatdar reiterated the opinion in his certificate and said, “Since the property transaction is taking place between different communities, the permission cannot be given by me; therefore your application is filed.”As the observation practically imposed restrictions under the Disturbed Areas Act on the property transaction, the parties moved HC through advocate Aftab Ansari and submitted that the observation of Talati-cum-Mantri was factually incorrect, without jurisdiction, and has no basis in the provisions of the Disturbed Areas Act.They demanded that mamlatdar’s opinion be quashed because mamlatdar was only required to ascertain whether the property falls under the notified area or within 500 metres of its periphery. They also urged HC to direct the property registration authorities “not to create any hindrance in the registration of the property” on the basis of this opinion.After the preliminary hearing, Justice Nisha Thakore inquired with govt lawyer to find out who was the correct authority to issue such a certificate. HC stated, “Noticing the notification dated Aug 2, 2023 issued by state govt despite having opined so, the petitioners have been asked to seek appropriate permission from city deputy collector (east).” The court issued notice to govt seeking its reply by Oct 16.
