Government of Gujarat vs MANUBEN MIRIYABHAI VASAVA Advocate - M G KURESHI — 2/2025
Case under The Gujarat Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, 2020 Section 3,4(3),5(C),. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th April 2026.
GLGP - GUJARAT LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL CASES
CNR: GJNR010003582025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2/2025
Filing Date
07-04-2025
Registration No
2/2025
Registration Date
07-04-2025
Court
DISTRICT COURT RAJPIPLA
Judge
5-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
235
Police Station
DEDIAPADA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. V I BHATT
Respondent(s)
MANUBEN MIRIYABHAI VASAVA Advocate - M G KURESHI
TARABEN MANSUKHBHAI VASAVA
Adv. M G KURESHI
ASHOKBHAI MANSUKHBHAI VASAVA
Adv. M G KURESHI
Hearing History
Judge: 5-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 10-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 10-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 17-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted three accused individuals of charges under the Gujarat Land Acquisition Prohibition Act, 2020 and the Indian Penal Code for unauthorized possession and encroachment of government land belonging to a university college. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear case against the accused, as key witnesses contradicted the prosecution's account and the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the alleged illegal occupation of the land in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted three accused individuals of charges under the Gujarat Land Acquisition Prohibition Act, 2020 and the Indian Penal Code for unauthorized possession and encroachment of government land belonging to a university college. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear case against the accused, as key witnesses contradicted the prosecution's account and the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the alleged illegal occupation of the land in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts