The Gujarat Assembly amended the Disturbed Areas Act by a majority vote on Wednesday, giving sweeping powers to the district collectors to take possession of a property in such areas that will now be called “specified” areas.
Minister of state for revenue Sanjaysinh Mahida, while tabling the Bill, said it was to prevent “involuntary transfer of properties in the specified areas and protection of legal owners’ interests”.
The amended ‘Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in the Disturbed Areas (Amendment) Bill 2026’ was brought on the last day of the state Assembly’s Budget session.
The Bill expands the scope of “aggrieved party” and allows collectors to suo motu investigate applications against transfer of any such property by the “upset” party. If any such property transfer is found “objectionable”, a collector can take possession of it, the minister said.
The amendment includes the appointment of a monitoring and advisory committee to advise the government about an area’s potential for communal disturbance leading to the “involuntary displacement” of its residents, expanding the definition of “aggrieved persons”.
In place of the existing provision in the Act for declaration of an area as ‘disturbed area’, a new provision will be substituted to expand the instances for declaration to include “situations where an area of the state has become or is likely to become prone to disturbance of public order due to communal tensions…” it proposes.
BJP’s Ellisbridge MLA Amit Shah stated that the 1991 Act and the Bill with the latest amendments had a clear objective that no person could scare or force anyone to sell their property under pressure. He also cited names of residential societies where, he claimed, Hindus were forced to migrate after selling their properties to Muslims.
Story continues below this ad
“It is very sad that we had to even shift temples such as Prernatirth Derasar from the walled city area of Ahmedabad to the western side. Similarly, in Danilimda area, the owners of 26 societies had to sell their properties and leave…” Shah said in the House in support of the Bill.
BJP MLA from Vejalpur Amit Thaker stated there was a “conspiracy” to change the demography of Ahmedabad.
“Nearly 2.51 lakh square metres of encroachment has taken place in Juhapura and Sarkhej. I received this in a written reply from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation… There is a conspiracy to change the demography of several areas of Ahmedabad,” Thaker stated in the House.
Meanwhile, the lone Muslim MLA in the Assembly, Imran Khedawala, opposed the Bill and alleged that the BJP MLAs were discussing such issues in the House since they feared losing votes. He also requested the state government to allocate land for the minority community in proportion to its population.
Story continues below this ad
Questioning the addition of new areas under the Disturbed Areas Act, the Congress MLA from Jamalpur-Khadia said, “If it is true that there is peace in Gujarat in the last 30 years of the BJP’s rule, then why are new areas added to the Disturbed Areas Act. Over the last few years, 44 new areas have been included under the Act.”
He asked Mahida to clarify if the Act and the proposed Bill were restricted to Ahmedabad. Also, questioning the ruling party’s intentions, Khedawala said, “Then why not cancel the Lulu Mall project in Chandkheda as its owner is a Muslim?”
Congress’ Patan MLA Kirit Patel, too, opposed the Bill during the discussion. Citing a BJP MLA’s claims of encroachments, Patel questioned, “There has been a BJP rule for the last 30 years. Why was this encroachment not removed under the BJP rule?”
On a lighter note, Patel pointed at the treasury and the opposition benches and stated that since many members of the House had been taken from the Congress, the Disturbed Areas Act should be implemented on the Opposition side, too.
Story continues below this ad
Other provisions of the Bill
Areas with ‘likelihood of communal tension’ to be covered. While the district collector will continue to sanction transfers of such immovable properties in the “specified” areas, he/she shall also take into consideration “the likelihood of breach of public order due to communal tension between the communities residing in the area, and accordingly make the decision on such application and for that purpose, necessary amendment is proposed,” the Bill adds.
The Bill states that it is “considered necessary to avoid any unnecessary hardship to the persons for obtaining the approval for transfer of any immovable property situated in a specified area by way of mortgage in favour of a financial institution for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance from such institution and for that purpose, necessary amendment is proposed”.
