Ahmedabad, Feb. 25 -- The Gujarat high court has set aside an order of the City Deputy Collector (East), Ahmedabad, that blocked the sale of a property in the Gheekanta area, holding that the authority acted outside the limits prescribed under the Disturbed Areas Act, 1991. The Act, implemented in the aftermath of communal riots in the 1980s, requires the district collector's permission for transferring property, especially between parties of different religious communities, in notified areas to prevent distress sales arising out of fear or coercion. Justice Aniruddha P Mayee passed the order on February 16 in a petition filed by Nadeemkhan Valibahadar Pathan and eight other members of his family, who are the proposed buyers of a property. The sellers were five co-owners of the same property, all of whom jointly approached the high court. The respondents included the city deputy collector (East), Ahmedabad, other revenue authorities, and the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad-1 (City), Gheekanta. The property lies in Ahmedabad's Gheekanta area, notified under the Disturbed Areas Act. Court records show the dispute stemmed from prolonged civil litigation between the buyers' family and the co-owners, resolved by compromise. The co-owners agreed to sell at prevailing market value; the buyers' father already possessed the premises. On March 26, 2024, buyers and sellers jointly sought permission under section 5(3)(b) of the Act from the city deputy collector (East), Ahmedabad, to execute and register the sale deed. On October 19, the deputy collector rejected it, citing circle officer and police inspector reports on risks to peace and local demographic balance. The high court quashed the rejection, ruling that the deputy collector exceeded statutory powers. "In the impugned order, the respondent No.1-City Deputy Collector has not rendered any finding in terms of the provisions of Section 5(3)(b) of the Act," Justice Mayee observed. The judge added, "The impugned order has been passed on considerations which are dehors the provisions of Section 5(3)(b) of the said Act. The impugned order is therefore bad in law." The high court remanded the matter to the city deputy collector (East) for fresh consideration, directing a decision within eight weeks-after an effective hearing-strictly on free consent of both parties and fair market value. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the property transaction....