The Supreme Court on Monday protected lands belonging to Asaram Bapu’s Ashram in Gujarat from immediate forfeiture and eviction action initiated by the State government.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that the show cause notice issued to the Ashram lacked material particulars supporting the allegations made against it and directed the State to place on record its counter affidavit with all necessary details.

Hence, it directed that no coercive action be taken against the Ashram.

The matter was posted for further consideration on May 5.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Ashram Trust, argued that the State has accused the Trust of profiteering from the allotted land but had failed to provide any particulars in the notice to substantiate the allegation.

Taking note of this submission, the Court questioned the adequacy of the notice and the absence of specific allegations.

“What profiteering? You have to be specific. In such vague notice how do you expect a reply? Your notice is prima facie lacking material particulars,” the Court observed.

The proceedings arose from action initiated by revenue authorities in Gujarat against land allotted to the Ashram Trust at Motera village. The action was initiated following allegations of encroachment and violation of grant conditions.

The land, measuring 6,261 square metres, was originally allotted to the Trust by an order dated April 30, 1980 for use as an ashram along with charitable, educational and allied activities.

Subsequently, the Trust came to occupy additional land beyond the original allotment. By an order dated July 23, 1992, authorities regularised occupation of an additional 10,000 square metres, subject to conditions, including requirement of prior permission of the Collector for construction and use of the land.

Thereafter, authorities alleged that the Trust continued to occupy further land beyond the land originally allotted and subsequently regularised.

Revenue inspections were conducted and proceedings were initiated under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code alleging breach of allotment conditions and unauthorised occupation of government land.

These proceedings led to issuance of show cause notices by the Collector proposing forfeiture of allotted land and eviction from alleged encroached portions.

Challenging these actions, the Trust first pursued remedies before revenue authorities and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, and thereafter approached the Gujarat High Court.

Before the High Court, the State relied on measurement records indicating that the Trust was in possession of approximately 49,758 square metres of land.

According to the State, out of this total area, about 15,778 square metres was treated as unauthorised occupation beyond land that had been lawfully allotted or subsequently regularised.

A portion of the disputed land, measuring about 6,104 square metres, was identified as forming part of the Sabarmati riverbed. The High Court recorded that riverbed land could not be regularised and held that receipts relied upon by the Trust did not amount to lawful allotment in the absence of formal government orders.

The High Court also recorded findings that several constructions had been carried out without obtaining prior permission from the Collector, as required under the terms governing the allotment and regularisation of the land.

The Court also took note of material placed on record relating to development planning in the surrounding area, including land identified for the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Sports Enclave and infrastructure planning linked to potential international sporting events, including proposals associated with 2036 Olympics-related development initiatives.

The Trust contended that the action taken against it was linked to broader development plans in the area and was therefore mala fide.

However, the High Court rejected this contention and held that the proceedings were based on breach of allotment conditions and unauthorised occupation, and not on any redevelopment or acquisition proposal.

The High Court also noted that additional occupation by the Trust had earlier been detected and regularised subject to conditions.

However, it ultimately upheld the authorities’ findings that the Trust had breached allotment conditions and had occupied government land beyond the permitted area, and therefore declined to interfere with the forfeiture and eviction proceedings.

The Trust has now moved the Supreme Court against the High Court's findings.