The Gujarat High Court imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 last week on petitioners who had sought to recall an order approving the sale of a shop in a predominantly Hindu area to a Muslim man in Vadodara, reported Live Law.

The petitioners, who were witnesses to the shop’s sale in 2016, had challenged a 2020 order by the High Court that had dismissed their objections that they were coerced to sign the sale agreements, reported Bar and Bench. The witnesses had to sign when the transaction was to be registered with the sub-registrar.

The High Court had passed the judgement in 2020 in response to a petition by the shop owner who had challenged the deputy collector’s order rejecting permission for sale on the ground that it was likely to affect the balance in the majority Hindu area and could develop into law and order problem.

In its order three years ago, the High Court had noted that authorities should see whether the sale was for a fair consideration and with free consent as provided under the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and provisions of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1981.

Under this law property transactions and sales cannot be executed without permission from the district collectorate.

At its hearing last week, Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that shopkeepers next to the Muslim man’s shop did not let him carry out renovation and he could not open his shop following which he had to file two police complaints, reported Live Law. Over 10 shop owners had filed a civil application who had their shops next to the one bought by the Muslim man.

Vaishnav noted that the state machinery has reexamined the record of witness testimony in 2022-‘23, in which, they appear to be not disputing their signatures but the circumstances of they being made to sign. “This exercise of the state, through on affidavit is a suggestion of opposing the application, but the intention is seen otherwise,” the High Court said.

The High Court said that it was a disturbing factor that the purchaser is being “hounded” and the petitioners are thwarting his attempt to enjoy the property.