Gujarat: Disturbed areas Act amendments get nod

The Act prohibits transfer of immovable property in “disturbed areas” of the state. One of the important amendments to the Act proposes to increase the punishment for breach of the law to imprisonment up to five years and fine not less than Rs 1 lakh.

Under the Act, the state government has been regulating sale and transfer of immovable properties by notifying those areas as ‘disturbed areas’ with an aim to check polarisation of a particular community in a particular area which has been facing communal riots and violence.

Senior Cabinet Minister Bhupendrasinh Chudasama introduced the Bill in the absence of Revenue Minister Kaushik Patel who is not keeping well. During the implementation of the said Act in the state, it has been experienced that in many cases, properties are transferred in contravention of the provisions of the Act and unscrupulous persons come in illegal possession thereby,” read the object clause of the Bill.

The Bill has enlarged the scope of the term “transfer”. The term now includes sale, gift, exchange, lease or taking possessions of property by way of power of attorney, through Transfer of Property Act, etc.

Under the provisions of the Bill, it has been proposed that if a person redevelops his property for his own use in disturbed area, he does not require to take permission from the Collector. But if he wants to redevelop the property and then transfer a part of it to some other person, then he must take permission from the Collector.

The Collector, assisted by Municipal Commissioner and Police Commissioner, will decide the application for transfer of ownership of a property in a disturbed area within three months. The same set of officers will assist the Collector to assess an area before notifying it as “disturbed”.

The Bill also proposes to set up an apex authority – Monitoring and Advisory Committee – to study and advise the authorities on the subject. The committee will be consisting of chairperson and other members as may be appointed by the state government.

Earlier, the punishment for the violation of the Act was imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs 10,000. To have a deterrent effect, the Bill proposes to increase the quantum of punishment, making it maximum imprisonment of six years and fine of at least Rs 1,00,000.

Under the Bill, after receipt of an application for transfer of property under the Act, the Collector will hold an inquiry to ascertain several aspects like whether there is free consent of persons intending to be the transferor and the transferee, whether the transfer is for a fair value of immovable property proposed to be transferred, whether there is likelihood of polarisation of persons belonging to the community causing disturbance in demographical equilibrium of the persons belonging to different communities residing in the area and whether there is likelihood of improper clustering of persons belonging to one community in the area.

After introducing the Bill in the House, Chudasama said, that the Bill is an attempt to preempt malafide intentions of some people to polarise sensitive areas. “It (the Act and proposed amendments) is a promissory note of permanent peace,” he added.

Chudasama said that the amendments were proposed after receiving a number of complaints about “unscrupulous persons who were getting ownership of properties while taking disadvantages of some legal loopholes”.

Opposing the Bill, senior Congress MLA from Dariapur of Ahmedabad, Gyasuddin Shaikh, said, “BJP has been in power for the past 26 years in Gujarat. They claim that there is peace and total law and order in the state. Then why do we have disturbed areas?”

Shaikh added that strict action should be taken against persons who are forcefully transferring properties. Due to this Act, many poor families who are in need of money have not been able to sell their properties, he said.

BJP MLA from Vadodara city, Manisha Vakil, welcomed the Bill saying that in many places, people from one community snatch property from the people of another community by force or by paying them more money.

Virji Thummar, Congress MLA from Lathi, opposed the Bill and asked whether the government would take a decision on the issue of Dalits not being able to buy properties in certain areas.

Senior Congress MLA Shailesh Parmar said that he would consider it as a matter of violation of human rights if he cannot sell or buy property without permission from the state government. Parmar asked if the government will clarify about instances when two persons from a single community wanted to strike a property deal in disturbed area. He added that people living in disturbed areas face numerous problems like not being able to avail bank loans, etc.

Congress MLA from Jamalpur of Ahmedabad Imran Khedawala termed the Act as biased and divisive.

“This Bill tries to instill fear in the minds of some people…It is making fun of Prime Minister’s slogan (Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas aur Sabka Vishwas)… It is nothing but an interference in the constitutional rights (of an individual)… The government should reconsider it,” Khedawala said. He claimed that more than half of Ahmedabad city is now covered under the Disturbed Areas Act.

Khedawala said, “This Act is like Article 370 imposed in Jammu and Kashmir, where no outsider can buy property. While the ruling party wants to repeal Article 370 from that state, the same party wants to impose similar rule here. Why this double standard?”

BJP MLA from Vadodara, Jitendra Sukhadia, countered Congress allegations of why the disturbed area act when there is peace in Gujarat and said, “It is good that opposition is accepting that there is peace in Gujarat for so many years.” He added that attempts like the latest Bill are required to continue peace in the state.

Replying to the Congress MLAs, Chudasama said, “We do not have any particular community in our mind (while bringing this Bill). You are trying to give political colour to this… For us, Dalit, Adivasi, Musalman all are Indians…Appeasement and bias has no place in our policy.