AHMEDABAD: In a major twist to the multi-crore Godadara land scam, a Surat court has ordered further investigation against BJP MLA Pravin Ghoghari, who represents Karanj assembly constituency, and 13 others.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the 'C-Summary' report filed by CID Crime, which had sought to close the investigation into the scam. Instead, the court has ordered a fresh probe into Ghoghari’s alleged role in the fraud, putting him and the other 13 accused back under the scanner.
The BJP legislator stands accused of land grabbing through forged signatures and fake documents, while serious questions are now being raised over the CID’s earlier clean chit.
The case dates back to 2017, when complainant Ushaben Gopalbhai Ladnawali filed an FIR at Limbayat Police Station, accusing Ghoghari and others of illegally acquiring 6,604 sq. m. of unsold land from Block No. 139 in Godadara village. She alleged that the fraud was executed using bogus power of attorney papers, fake affidavits, and forged satakhats, effectively erasing her name from the ownership records.
As the case grew more complex, it was transferred to CID Crime for a detailed investigation. However, DySP Aniruddha Singh Captain filed a 'C-Summary' report, claiming there was “no evidence” against Ghoghari and recommending closure of the case. This move raised eyebrows, especially since Ghoghari was a sitting MLA at the time.
Refusing to back down, Ushaben filed a Protest Petition, urging the court to reopen the investigation under provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The court sided with the complainant, citing serious gaps in the CID’s investigation. Key evidence—such as forensic analysis of disputed signatures and thumb impressions on the power of attorney documents dated July 21, 2005 (Serial Nos. 7074/2005 and 7075/2005)—had never been conducted.
Lawyers also pointed out suspicious land transactions: despite only 5,231 sq. m. of land being available after TP Road deductions, a shocking 18,287 sq. m. was shown as sold on October 17, 2008—an anomaly that strongly suggested foul play.
The court questioned why Talati officials gave Ghoghari a clean chit based solely on a single notary register signature, without corroborating documents. It also noted that CID Crime failed to seize critical evidence, such as supporting affidavits and other property records. This lack of due diligence hinted at a botched—or possibly biased—investigation, compelling the court to order a new round of questioning, including the possibility of interrogating Ghoghari himself.
Adding to Ghoghari’s troubles, his name had earlier surfaced in a sand theft case.
With the court directing a reinvestigation, Surat CID is now under pressure to rebuild the case from the ground up, verify all documentation, and hold powerful political figures accountable.
