The Gujarat High Court has stayed an October 2025 order of the Special Secretary Revenue Department (SSRD) rejecting applications seeking a post-facto (retrospective) permission under the Disturbed Areas Act, 1991) and directed “status quo” in case of 13 registered sale deeds of a low-rise housing complex dating back to 1969, in Paldi area of Ahmedabad, that went for redevelopment in 2014.
Popular as Varsha Flats, Jankalyan Cooperative Housing Society Limited was originally a society of mixed occupants, but post redevelopment its capacity was more than doubled and the additional flats were sold to minority community members too.
Justice A P Mayee, while hearing a bunch of petitions filed in the ongoing dispute between the residents of the society and the authorities in the case of the cancellation of 13 registered sale deeds citing the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991, (Disturbed Areas Act, 1991), issued notices to the state government and Deputy Collector of Ahmedabad (West), returnable on the next date of hearing on February 3, 2026.
The petitions are challenging the decision of the SSRD to reject applications seeking post-facto permission under the Act to ratify the contentious sale deeds.
The SSRD had rejected the applications in October 2025 on the grounds of a “huge difference” in the sale price of the transactions of some of the properties for which the sale deeds were registered between April 2016 and February 2018.
Among the respondents to the present petition in the HC is an individual seller of the original property of Jan Kalyan Society, who, as per the petitioners, is “unavailable” for legal processes pertaining to the permission under the Act.
This law prohibits the direct sale of property in areas marked as ‘Disturbed’ between people of different faiths unless it’s cleared by the collector’s office, who has to certify that the transaction involves free consent. The Act was brought in primarily to prevent distress sales during communal situations.
Story continues below this ad
The HC’s oral order, issued in the last week of December, noted the contention of the petitioners that the difference in the price of the transactions cannot be considered a ground for refusal of post-facto permission under the Act. The petitioners had challenged the October 7, 2025, order of the SSRD, who rejected the 13 applications for “post-facto permission” on the ground that the transactions are for “different considerations” and “not in fair value” — the same ground cited by the Deputy Collector Ahmedabad (West) for rejecting the applications on June 16, 2023. In all, 52 sale deeds were executed of which 10 are contentious, some involving multiple transfers, thus adding up to 13.
Official action, legal battle
Jankalyan Cooperative Housing Society was registered in May 1969 and comprised four towers of three storeys each, consisting a total of 24 units. In September 2014, the society entered into a contract with R N Builders, to redevelop the property with additional 32 flats, making a total of 54 apartments. Thereby, the existing occupants were to be allotted 24 flats while 32 additional flats were to be sold to new individuals. In April 2016, a revised development plan was sanctioned and in July 2016, a title clearance certificate was obtained by the society. Out of the 32 new members to be added to the society, 28 sale deeds were executed in 2016 by the society and the same were processed by obtaining prior permission under the Act.
On April 4, 2018, the Deputy Collector issued a notice “ostensibly on the basis of some disgruntled and antisocial elements,” the petition contends. The petitioners moved the HC on multiple occasions, seeking stay on the orders passed by the Deputy Collector. The main contention of the authorities is that 13 of the sale deeds were registered without the requisite permissions under the Act. The petitioners have contended that the sub-registrar did not precondition that the permissions must be obtained under the Act.
Although the Gujarat HC stayed the notice of the Deputy Collector, an order was passed by the officer to cancel 13 sale deeds without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the petition contends. The Gujarat HC also quashed and set aside the order of the deputy collector cancelling the 13 sale deeds.
Story continues below this ad
In October 2018, the deputy collector initiated proceedings under the Act and issued show-cause notices to the petitioners as to why the registered sale deeds should not be cancelled. The petitioners and other members filed their replies, contending that there had been “no violation of the provisions” and sought post-facto permission under the Act, but on December 27, 2018, the deputy collector held the registered sale deeds of the petitioners and other transferors as “null and void” and subsequently denied post-facto permission under the Act.
The petitioners had appealed before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, who stayed the deputy collector’s order in February 2019 . The petition contends that a week after the order was stayed, the deputy collector rejected the applications of the petitioners for post-facto permission stating that the order of December 27, 2018, had not been quashed and set aside.
In May 2019, the HC directed the Principal Secretary to decide the appeals on merit. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, the Deputy Collector registered an FIR with Paldi police station for offences punishable under the Act.
The HC, hearing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR in August 2019, had directed that “no coercive action can be taken against the applicants” but the investigation may proceed in accordance with law.
Story continues below this ad
The appeals of the petitioners had been pending before the SSRD since 2023, which were rejected in October 2025.
