Constitution of India, 1950-7th Schedule, List III-Entry 3-Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985-Legislative validity and intention 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.

Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. 1985-Section 3-Indul- gence of detenues in property grabbing-Subjective satisfaction of District Magistrate that such acts of detenues affecting maintenance of public order-Detention order-Validity of.

Gujarat prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985-Sections 3, 11, 15 read with Section 21, General Clauses Act and article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India-Detention order by authorised officer- Approval by Board and State Government-Procedure-Not approved within 12 days-Effect-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, 1985-Sections 2(h), 2 (i)"Property grabber", "unauthorised structure"-Meaning of.

Words and Phrases-"Property grabber", "unauthorised structure", "forthwith"-Meaning of.

Mutation-Revenue Record-Names recorded-Evidentiary value-Whether evidence to title-Title whether follows possession.

Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 3, 61-Appreciation of evidence-Mutation of names in Revenue Record-Whether evidence to title-Title whether follows 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 (Crl) No. 110 of 1993 did not file the proof, his SLP was dismissed.

The appellants contended that the blanket power of delegation by 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 owners 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.