NAVALSHANKAR ISHWARLAL DAVE AND ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 12-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
if 
NA V ALSHANKAR ISHWARLAL DA VE AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 1993 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. MOHAN,JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-lth Schedule, list Ill-Entry 3-Gujarat 
Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. 1985-Legislative validity and imention 
of 
Gujarat prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985: Section 3-Power 
of detention-Delegation-Legality of-Illegal possession of public or private 
lands-Whether disturbs public order . . 
Gi1jarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. 1985-Section 3-Indul-
gence of-detenues in property grabbing-Subjective satisfaction of District 
D 
Magistrate that such acts of detenues affecting maintenance of public 
·order-Detention order-\/alidit)' of 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Gujarat prevention of Anti .J. Social Activities Act, 1985-Sections 3, 11, I 5 
read with Section 21, General Clauses Act and article 22 (5) of the Constitution 
of India-Detention order.b)• authorised officer-Approval by Board and State 
Government-Procedure.:__Norapproved within 12 da)'s-Ejfec1-Power to re-
voke or rescind by detaining authority and State Government-Scope of 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 21,22 read with section 3, Gujarat 
prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985-Representation of 
detenue-Consideration 
by 
State 
Government-Delay-Effect-
"Forthwith"-Meaning of 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti+Social Activities Act, I985-Sections 2(h), 2 
(i)--"Property grabber", "tinauiliorised structure"-Meaning of 
Words and Phrases-"Property grabber", "unauthorised structure", 
"forthwith" -Meanir,lg of 
Mutation-Revenue 
Recoril-Names 
recorded-Evidentiary 
value-Whetlter evidence to title-Title whether follows possession. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 3, ·6 J-Appreciation of evidence- Mutation 
.676 
•
---
NAVALSHANKAR ISHWARLAL v. ~TAIBOFGUJARAT 
677 
of names in.Revenue Record-Whether evidence to title-Title whether follows 
A· 
. 
. 
. 
possession. 
The detention of the appellants were ordered by the Magistrate on his 
satisfaction in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1)°and (2) of the Gujarat · 
Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. 
When the appellants challenged the detention order and the Act before 
the High Court filing the writ petitions in pre-detention execution stage, the 
High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the validity of the 
detention order and the Act. 
The appellants filed SLPS against the High Court judgment. 
This Court, when the SLPS came up for admission, directed to list the 
cases after the proof of surrender of the detenues-petitioners was filed. The 
appellants produced the proof of surrender. As one Prasant, petitioner in SLP 
B 
c 
(Crl) No. 110of1993 did not file the proof, his SLP was dismissed. 
D 
The appellants contended that the.blanket power of delegation ~y the 
State Government under section 3 of PASA was a negation of satisfaction on 
the part of the State Govt. and likely to be abused by the District Magistrate 
or the Commissioner of Police; that the order of delegation made by the State 
Govt. without application of mind was illegal and invalid; that the appellants 
could not be said to be property grabbers of their own land, because they, as 
partners of Jaya Prabha Traders, whose name was mutated in the revenue 
records since 26.4.1969, were pwners of the land and lawfully in possession, 
when suo motU revisional order illegally passed by the District Collector was 
suspended by the Revenue Tribunal; that PASA could not be made applicable 
retrospectively from 1969 and that the exercise of the power under section 
3(2) by the District Magistrate was illegal. 
Allowing the appeals of the detenues,this Court, 
E 
F 
HELD: 1.1.GujaratPreventiono~Anti-SocialActivities,Act,1985was G 
made in exercise of tlie power under entry 3 of concurrent list III of 7th 
Schedule and reserved for consideration of the President and received his 
assent. So it is a valid law. (686-B) 
1.2. It envisages that theState Govt. under s. 3 (1) would exercise the H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 3 S.C.R. 
power of detention or authorise an officer under s. 3(2) to detain bootlegger, 
dangerous person, drug offender, immoral traffic offender and property 
grabber. The PASA was made to provide for preventive detention of aforestated 
persons whose activities were satisfled to be prejudicial to the maintenance of 
public order. (686-C) 
1.3. The Act postulates satisfaction on the part of the State 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.