‘Pending files, negative police reports': Surat lawyers flag issues in property deals under Disturbed Areas Act, seek timely clearance
In their memorandum submitted on Friday, the lawyers told the top officials that over a thousand files related to the Disturbed Areas Act are pending with the police department, awaiting clearance.
The lawyers informed the top officials about negative and delayed responses from the police department in their opinion report, which is mandatory to clear property sale deed files with the revenue department. Due to this, a number of property dealings in the walled city areas get cancelled, causing significant problems to both the sellers and the buyers, the lawyers said while making the representations.
The 1991 Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act empowers the administration to declare parts of the territorial jurisdiction as 'disturbed' in the context of communal clashes and prohibits the direct sale of property between people of different faiths unless it is cleared by the collector's office, who has to certify that the transaction involves free consent. As part of the process, the administration interacts with neighbours to make sure that there is no coercion or threat involved in the sale.
The lawyers said that while taking the consent of two neighbours used to be enough earlier, police are now demanding the nod of 10 of them. If there is any objection, the deal gets cancelled, the memorandum stated.
The lawyers requested the police commissioner to organise a daylong drive in every police station to clear the pending files.
Advocate Farhan Shaikh told The Indian Express, 'We have got a positive response from the police commissioner. He has told us that he will talk to the district collector and see what can be done so that the public does not face problems. He also assured us that if all necessary procedures are followed, there should be no delay.'
On how the Act works, he said, 'If a person wants to sell a property situated in locations where the Disturbed Areas Act is in force, they have to send a copy of the file to the district collector's revenue department. A copy of the file also goes to the Special Branch of Surat police department; from there, it makes its way to the Deputy Commissioner of Police's office, and then to the Assistant Commissioner of police, the Police Inspector and finally to the Police Sub-Inspector associated with the local police chowki.'
Shaikh said, 'We don't have a major issue with the district revenue department as they have opened a special section, which clears such files. (But) The seller and buyer have to bring 10 neighbours to the police station and get their statements recorded to confirm they do not object to the sale deed. The procedure is done only after the Mamlatdar's visit, and he submits his report to the Ashant Dhara (Disturbed Areas) department. It takes around four to five months to get such files cleared due to the delay in the police work.'
Advocate Rushikesh Godiwala said, 'The police stations have a bunch of files lying around with no clearance. The personnel are busy maintaining law and order and police security arrangements during festivals and VIP visits. We request that the pending files lying in the police station be cleared at the earliest. The people who sell property have an urgent need for money for health reasons, the education of their children, etc. Due to the delay and negative opinion from the police, the files get stuck. We hope that in the coming days, some positive response may come up and benefit lakhs of citizens.'
Surat police commissioner Gahlaut could not be contacted for comment despite multiple attempts.
Besides Farhan and Godiwala, the other lawyers who made the representations included Dewang Ghaswala, Keyur Modi, Samit Gadiwala, and Juned Shaikh.
Police stations falling under the Disturbed Areas Act in Surat include Chowk, Rander, Lalgate, Salbatpura, Mahidharpura, Athwalines, Limbayat and Khatodara.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court disposes of PWD irregularities case against Satyendar Jain
A Delhi court on Monday disposed of a corruption case against former Public Works Department (PWD) minister Satyendar Jain, of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), alleging irregularities in hiring a creative team for PWD's infrastructure projects in 2016 and causing a loss to the public exchequer. Satyendar Jain is also facing an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) probe over an alleged ₹ 7 crore bribe from a company tasked with installing CCTV cameras in Delhi. Special judge Dig Vinay Singh, accepting the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI's) closure report filed in 2022, said, 'When CBI could not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy, abuse of power, pecuniary gain, or wrongful loss to the government exchequer, and the alleged acts are at most administrative irregularities, no offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act or criminal conspiracy is established.' The court noted that despite several years of investigation carried out by the probe agency, no incriminating evidence has been found. 'Not every decision made in an official capacity that does not strictly follow rule warrants invoking the POC (Prevention of Corruption) Act,' the court said. CBI had filed the case against Jain in May 2018, based on a reference from Delhi lieutenant governor, to investigate allegations of irregularities in awarding a tender to a private firm for PWD's infrastructure projects. Senior officials of PWD, including its engineer-in-chief, were also named as accused. According to the FIR, Jain and other PWD officials were accused of irregularities in hiring a 'creative team' of consultants, in breach of recruitment and financial regulations. They were also accused of outsourcing professionals for PWD projects without the finance department's approval. To be sure, Jain is facing two other cases, one pertaining a disproportionate assets case, in which he is accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, up to approximately ₹1.62 crore between 2015 and 2017. Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in the case in 2022 and granted bail in 2024. Jain is also facing an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) probe over an alleged ₹7 crore bribe from a company tasked with installing CCTV cameras in Delhi. Both cases are at the Rouse Avenue Court and charges have not been framed in either. Following the verdict, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal posted on X in Hindi: 'All the cases filed against 'you' leaders are false. With time, the truth will come out in all cases. We were sent to jail by filing false cases against us. Shouldn't all those who filed these false cases and the leaders at whose behest these false cases were filed be sent to jail?Whenever they wanted... they sent us to jail, and whenever they felt like it, they filed a 'closure report'? Is this justice?' The BJP did not respond to requests for comment on the matter. In its closure report in the PWD case, the CBI said that it found no criminality or evidence of personal gain, bribery or any criminal intent or violation of financial rules. On the hiring process, the CBI concluded that there was no irregularity in the selection process and the same was based on merit and qualification. Meanwhile, on the financial aspect, the agency found no irregularity of illicit gain to any of the accused, stating that the expenditure for the project was well within the threshold delegated to the PWD, and there was no mandatory requirement to consult the finance department. 'The hiring of professionals was necessary due to urgent departmental needs. A transparent recruitment process was followed through a competitive method, and no payments were made beyond prescribed norms and approved limits. Emoluments were neither excessive nor irregular,' the CBI said. A protest petition was moved by the Directorate of Vigilance of the Delhi government in 2022, challenging the report's findings, alleging that the CBI carried out a 'biased' probe, ignoring documentary evidence and relying solely on witness statements. Rejecting the protest plea, the court on Monday stated that the law clearly stated that suspicion cannot replace proof and even to charge someone, a strong suspicion was needed to proceed. 'The precedents relied upon by the complainant are distinguishable on the facts and do not help in the facts of the present case,' the court said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
5 more cases against Srushti Clinic head
Hyderabad: Gopalapuram police have registered five new cases against the head of Srushti Fertility Clinic Dr Athaluri Namratha alias Pachipala Namratha, and others based on complaints lodged by five sets of victims. While in one case a couple alleged that the doctor handed them a baby whose DNA did not match theirs, three other couples accused the clinic of adopting dubious methods. They claimed that they had already paid the money — anywhere from Rs 12.5 lakh to Rs 19 lakh — and even deposited their biological samples when they grew suspicious about the operations of Dr Namratha and her clinic. The frauds occurred between 2019 and 2025. Cops are yet to ascertain details of the fifth case. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad Case 1: DNA mismatch causes trauma A woman from Hyderabad, requesting anonymity, alleged that she and her husband had approached Universal Srushti Fertility & Research Centre in July 2024 for infertility treatment. Dr Namratha advised gestational surrogacy using the couple's own genetic material and assured them that all legal formalities would be handled by them. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The couple paid Rs 16.5 lakh for hormone therapy, laboratory work, and surrogate expenses. Their egg and sperm samples were collected at the clinic's Visakhapatnam branch on September 18, 2024. A baby girl was delivered via caesarean section on June 16, 2025, at a Visakhapatnam-based hospital. "Initially, we were told by the doctors that the baby was healthy, but they later shifted her to the NICU, terming her as late pre-term," the woman said. The couple's suspicions arose after Srushti staff refused to divulge the surrogate mother's details. Their fears deepened after they were unable to observe any facial resemblance with the baby, which prompted them to go for an independent DNA test. "The results, which came out on July 12, confirmed that neither of us was biologically related to the child," the complainant alleged. When confronted on July 22, Dr Namratha allegedly admitted that donor gametes were mistakenly used, and asked the couple to return the infant so the clinic could seek govt adoption clearance and repeat the procedure with their samples. The parents refused and approached the police, citing immense emotional trauma and legal uncertainty over the child's status. It is learnt that the child is still in the custody of the couple. The police have registered a case against Dr Namratha, Dr Vidyulatha, Kalyani, Sheshagiri, and Srinivasa Reddy under sections 61 (2), 316 (2), 318(4), 111, 335, 336, 340 BNS & Sections 38, 39, and 40 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. Case 2: Rs 12.5 lakh lost in fraudulent surrogacy deal Another couple from the city approached police alleging they were duped of Rs 12.5 lakh by Dr Namratha and others through a fraudulent surrogacy deal. The husband, a 34-year-old private employee from the city, alleged that he and his wife approached Dr Namratha in Nov 2024 for a surrogate baby. Between April and May 2025, the couple paid Rs 10 lakh for tests and collection of 'biological samples' at the Secunderabad branch. On June 26, Dr Namratha allegedly informed them that the "baby is ready," indicating successful initiation of surrogacy, and collected Rs 2.5 lakh more. Though Dr Namratha assured that the baby would be delivered on February 3, 2026, the couple became suspicious when the hospital repeatedly refused to reveal the surrogate's identity, produce consent forms, or show proof of court permission, and decided to approach the police. A case was registered against Dr Namratha, her associates, Chenna Rao, and Sureka under relevant sections of BNS & the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. Case 3: NRI couple loses Rs 19 lakh A US-based NRI couple who approached Universal Srushti Fertility and Research Centre in December 2019 for infertility treatment allegedly lost Rs 19 lakh to the accused. The husband, a 49-year-old software professional, and his wife approached Dr Namratha who, quoting a high success rate, charged Rs 7 lakh in cash and collected the couple's biological samples. After an unsuccessful embryo transfer, the couple returned to the USA. In January 2020, Dr Namratha advised the couple to opt for a surrogacy procedure costing Rs 25 lakh. The complainant's brother paid Rs 12 lakh in cash as an initial instalment. "The clinic provided no documents about medical procedures or statutory clearances. Due to Covid-19, I could not personally meet the doctor, and when I reached the fertility centre on Sunday, I came to know about the recent case against Dr Namratha," the complainant alleged. A case was registered against Dr Namratha under relevant sections of the BNS. Case 4: Nalgonda couple alleges Rs 11 lakh fraud A couple from Nalgonda alleged that Dr Namratha and her associates duped them of Rs 11 lakh with a false assurance of providing them with a child through a surrogacy procedure. The 49-year-old man and his wife first approached Universal Srushti Fertility Centre in June 2024 after unsuccessful IVF treatment attempts. Dr Namratha suggested surrogacy, and the couple paid Rs 9 lakh through UPI and Rs 2 lakh in cash between May 20 and July 2, 2025, and their samples were collected at the Secunderabad facility. "Despite the payments, the hospital neither produced proof of necessary legal permissions. They collected samples from us but did not start the surrogacy procedure," the complaint alleged. On learning about the other complaints against the facility, the victim approached the police on Sunday, and a case was registered against Dr Namratha, her associates, Archana, Dr Sadanandam, Chenna Rao, and Sureka under relevant Sections of the BNS.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Juveniles, age of consent and justice: Explaining the wide conviction gap
An analysis of government data in the Supreme Court reveals a stark disparity between the number of juveniles and young adults charged under rape and child sexual abuse laws and the relatively small proportion who are eventually convicted, throwing sharp focus on the ongoing debate over the age of consent and its unintended consequences. According to the Union government's latest submission to the Supreme Court, between 2018 and 2022, only 468 juveniles aged 16-18 were convicted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, despite more than 4,900 being booked across the country in the same period , a conviction rate of just 9.55%. For charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, just 855 convictions were recorded out of 6,892 cases during the same period , a rate of only 12.4%. The corresponding numbers for young adults aged 18-22 tell a similar story. While 52,471 were arrested under these stringent laws during this period, only 6,093 were convicted under Pocso, a conviction rate of just 11.61%. Of 24,306 arrested between 2018 and 2022 for rape, only 2,585 young adults were convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, amounting to just 10.63% . The statistics form part of the Centre's written submissions opposing any move to lower the age of consent under the Pocso Act or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships, telling the top court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. However, the wide gap between the registration of cases and convictions suggests that while these laws aim to safeguard children from sexual exploitation, they may also be pulling large numbers of adolescents and young people (mostly men) into the criminal justice system, often in cases involving consensual relationships that turn adversarial due to family or societal pressure. Convictions and sentencing For juveniles (16-18 years), Pocso convictions rose modestly from 144 in 2018 to 213 in 2022 even as the number of detentions rose from 844 to 1,757, which implies a conviction rate of just 12.12% in 2022. The majority received prison terms of up to 10 years. Life imprisonment was awarded in only 31 cases across five years, and there was no death penalty. For the same group, rape convictions remained flat, ranging from 83 to 110 per year, with over 85% receiving sentences of up to 10 years. Only eight juveniles, tried as adults under the pertinent legal provisions, received life terms during this period. Among young adults in the 18-22 years age group, convictions under Pocso grew from 1,213 in 2018 to 1,312 in 2022. However, even this increase is modest considering the scale of bookings under the Act. While 8,740 persons were apprehended in 2018, 13,068 were arrested in 2022. That translates to conviction rates of 13.88% in 2018 and 10.04% in 2022 under Pocso. Additionally, rape convictions dropped from 620 in 2018 to 476 in 2022, reflecting a 23.23% decline despite higher arrest figures. Life imprisonment was more common in this age group. 773 individuals received life terms for Pocso offences, while 238 did so for rape. A total of 22 young adults were awarded the death penalty over the five years, compared to just one juvenile. These statistics emerge at a time when the Supreme Court is hearing a public interest litigation examining whether the blanket criminalisation of all sexual activity below the age of 18 under the Pocso Act requires re-examination. The law, enacted in 2012, sets the age of consent at 18 and makes even consensual acts between teenagers prosecutable. Senior advocates Indira Jaising and Sidharth Luthra, appearing as amici curiae in the 2012 public interest litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Nipun Saxena, have argued that the mandatory reporting requirement and lack of a close-in-age exception is leading to over-criminalisation, infringing on the autonomy, privacy, and health rights of adolescents, particularly girls. But the Union government has pushed back, telling the court that 'any dilution of the age of consent, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law.' In a recently filed affidavit, It has urged the court to uphold the 'bright-line' age of 18 to deter abuse and exploitation. Numbers suggest a need for nuance Data suggests that many of those convicted are themselves just a few years older than the complainants. The tables submitted by the government highlight that young men aged 18–22 are the most prosecuted group under Pocso, raising concerns that the protective intent of the law is being applied to penalise consensual relationships. For example, in 2022, 213 juveniles (16-18) were convicted under Pocso whereas 1,312 young adults (18-22) were convicted under the same Act -- over six times higher. Rape convictions for 18-22-year-olds (476) were also significantly higher than for juveniles (92). The sentencing trends further bolster the case for a more differentiated approach. A vast majority of both juveniles and young adults received sentences below 10 years, suggesting courts may be exercising discretion when faced with such cases, but only after the accused have undergone lengthy trials and detention. A legal and social dilemma The Centre's firm position against creating a 'close-in-age' exception, such as exempting consensual acts between teens aged 16-18, comes amid growing calls for a calibrated rethink. Several high courts, and even Supreme Court benches in bail and quashing proceedings, have flagged the problem of criminalising teenage love. Yet, the government has maintained that 'loosening age-based protections could open avenues for abuse under the guise of consensual activity,' and that the law must 'act as a strong deterrent… in a society where children, especially girls, are vulnerable to manipulation, coercion and abuse.' At the heart of the debate lies the challenge of balancing protection with autonomy, ensuring minors are not exploited, while also preventing a legal system from punishing consensual and developmental relationships among peers. In her written submissions countering the Centre's stance, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and that increasing it to 18 years through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. 'No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase,' stated her submissions, adding the increase in the age of consent violated the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity, having regard to the fact that they have attained puberty giving rise to sexual awareness. 'Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and the development of sexual relationships of choice. Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law,' the submissions contended. Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals. 'Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious or inter-caste relationships,' she said. 'The only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18 is not a form of 'abuse',' Jaising's submissions added. The senior counsel urged the Supreme Court to read into the impugned legal provisions a 'close-in-age exception', applicable when both parties to the sexual act are adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 and the sexual act is consensual. 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. As the Supreme Court resumes hearing the matter next month, the numbers paint a sobering picture : thousands of adolescents and young adults are caught in the legal net each year, but only a fraction are ultimately held guilty, often after years of litigation. Whether this calls for legislative reform or judicial steps may now be for the court to decide but the data offers compelling reason to confront the unintended consequences of the current regime.
