Gujarat High Court Intervenes in Vadodara Land Sale Controversy
The Gujarat High Court has issued a significant stay order, halting a notice from the Vadodara deputy collector that sought to cancel a 2018 land sale and restore possession to the original owner. This legal intervention comes despite the same authority having granted permission for a second sale of the same property in August 2025, creating a contradictory situation that has drawn judicial scrutiny.
Court Proceedings and Timeline of Events
Justice Aniruddha Mayee presided over the hearing, staying the notice issued on November 4, 2025, while considering a petition jointly filed by the original seller and buyer. The court has directed the concerned authority to submit a detailed response by February 17, 2026, effectively putting the controversial notice on hold until further examination.
The case has its origins in June 2018 when Sanjay Patel executed a sale deed for a land parcel located in Fatehgunj area, transferring ownership to Mohammed Haseem Shaikh. Following proper registration procedures, Shaikh's name was officially mutated in the property records during 2019. After Shaikh's unfortunate demise, his legal heirs were duly recorded in the revenue documents, establishing a clear chain of ownership.
Legal Challenge Under Disturbed Areas Act
The transaction first encountered legal obstacles in March 2020 when a neighboring property owner raised objections. The neighbor contended that the sale violated specific provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Properties and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, arguing that a Hindu seller had transferred property to a Muslim buyer without obtaining the mandatory prior permission.
This objection prompted the deputy collector to issue an initial notice to both Patel and the Shaikh family, demanding explanations as to why the 2018 sale deed should not be invalidated. In response, both parties collaboratively filed an application seeking post-facto permission under the Act, a request that has remained pending without resolution since 2020.
Contradictory Actions by Authorities
In a surprising development, the Shaikh family successfully obtained the requisite prior permission under the Disturbed Areas Act from the same deputy collector's office in August 2025, enabling them to sell the identical land parcel to Soyel Ansari. Despite having authorized this subsequent transaction, the deputy collector issued a fresh notice on November 4, 2025, once again questioning the validity of the original 2018 sale and proposing restoration of possession to Patel.
This contradictory approach prompted Patel and the Shaikh family to approach the High Court, where they presented several compelling arguments. The petitioners emphasized that no dispute exists between the original parties regarding the 2018 sale. They further contended that the notice lacks legal foundation because the authority has failed to adjudicate their pending post-facto permission application filed in 2020. Adding to the complexity, government records pertaining to their permission application have reportedly gone missing from official files.
Judicial Stay and Future Proceedings
The High Court has granted an ad-interim stay on the deputy collector's notice, explicitly stating: "In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim stay of the impugned notice dated 04.11.2025 in case Avit/Dastavej Rad/Appeal No. 3 of 2025 issued by the respondent — Deputy Collector, Vadodara City until the next date of hearing."
This legal development highlights significant procedural inconsistencies in the administration of property transactions under the Disturbed Areas Act. The court's intervention underscores the importance of consistent administrative action and proper documentation in property disputes. All parties now await the deputy collector's response due in February 2026, which will determine the next phase of this complex legal battle.
