Why did Srivastava threaten Shah to vacate the land? Srivastava had got a sale agreement known in legal parlance as `banakhat' signed by landlord Harshadbhai Master, even though the latter had already signed a `banakhat' for selling the land to Shah. Armed with `banakhat' documents on Rs. 30 non- judicial stamp papers, both the parties made their claim over the land, resulting in the dispute. Neither had registered the `banakhats' with the registrar of properties, as is required.

This is but one instance of crime related to the signing of more than one `banakhat' by landlords. The dispute between Srivastava and Congress councillor and builder Shailesh `Sotta' Mehta over the Manki Complex land is also said have its origins a double `banakhat'. Both Srivastava and Sotta claimed to have `banakhats' in their names.

When Sotta was assaulted, allegedly by Raju Rohida, in May, he suspected the hands of the BJP MLA behind the attack saying that Srivastava had a number of disputes with him including the one on Manki Complex land.

When builder Upendra Patel was fired upon in February last, he traced its cause to a land dispute between him and Jairaj Builders over 1.30 lakh square feet of land in Akota. While Patel claims to have a `banakhat' of the land in his favour, his rivals claim to be the owner of the land by virtue of taking over Hindustan Earth Movers Ltd, the original owners of the land.

In fact, `banakhat' related problems have multiplied in the city owing to demand for land and a rise in real estate prices in this fast-expanding city, whose population will soon touch 20 lakh. Even Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) chairman K.K. Shah agrees that land is scarce.Thanks to inadequate legal provisions and administrative measures, there is no effective check on unscrupulous farmers and land-owners who sign more than one `banakhat'. Thousands of such cases are pending in court.

Senior advocate and former secretary of the Baroda Bar Association, Moinuddin T. Rifai, says the only remedy to the problem is an amendment in Gujarat State Stamp Act. He said that an amendment in the Act was made in 1990 that made it compulsory for registration of `banakhat' with the registrar of properties.

However, a Gujarat High Court order subsequently ruled that even an unregistered `banakhat' was enforceable at law. So, hardly a few people now go for registration of `banakhat' and this leads to disputes.

Rifai, himself a counsel in more than two dozen `banakhat' cases, said that not a single person could be prosecuted so far for signing multiple `banakhats' for lack of evidence. Such disputes are generally settled out of the court.

Resident Deputy Collector C.R. Kharsan, when contacted, ruled out chances of issuing stamp papers in back date explaining that registers of stamp vendors were checked and countersigned by the treasury officer every month. He says it may well happen that the builders obtain stamp-papers in advance which they might be using at convenience. He says the only solution was an amendment of the Stamp Act.

When asked what steps the administration planned to check the multiple-`banakhat' problem that often ended in violence, Collector Anil Mukim said, ``The document is signed between two individuals without involvement of the administration. The government should consult legal pundits.''

Police Commissioner J. Mahapatra agrees that the recent crimes in the city were spawned by land disputes, but refuses to discuss the `banakhat' issue, saying it is a revenue department not a police matter.