In Porbandar, Gujarat, a ten‑year‑old dispute has resurfaced after the death of former MLA Bhura Munja Jadeja. His second wife, Hiralba Jadeja, is now accused of illegally possessing thirteen properties that were registered in the name of Jadeja’s other wife, Chauladevi, and her son Bharat. The case, which involves land‑grabbing, multiple criminal charges, and a historical political backdrop, is drawing renewed attention from both law‑enforcement and the public.

Political Background

Bhura Munja Jadeja served as the MLA for the Ranavav‑Kutiyana constituency from 1995 to 2002, a seat that later became Kutiyana after delimitation. He hailed from a powerful “Memon” community family; his brother Sarman Munja Jadeja was a notorious strong‑man, and his sister‑in‑law was linked to the infamous “Godmother” Santokben. Jadeja spent several years in the United Kingdom, where his first wife, Rajiben, and his second wife, Chauladevi, reportedly split their time between the UK and India.

Legal Action Against Hiralba Jadeja

On Monday, Hiralba Jadeja, who is currently incarcerated in a Junagadh jail, was booked at the Kamlabaug police station in Porbandar under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. She also faces seven other cases across Gujarat and Haryana. Police officials say a 2013 public notice issued by Bhura Munja Jadeja clearly disavowed any relationship with Hiralba, a notice that appeared in a local newspaper on 20 September 2013.

Chauladevi’s Claim for 13 Properties

In July 2025, Chauladevi filed an application with the Porbandar collectorate alleging that Hiralba had taken illegal possession of thirteen properties, including the 1,865‑square‑metre “Suraj Palace” bungalow. The bungalow was the site where Hiralba was originally arrested in a cascade of cases last year. Deputy Collector and Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sandipsinh Jadav led a six‑month investigation, cross‑checking property cards with the city survey department and establishing a complete ownership trail.

Judicial Procedure and Current Status

Under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and High Court directives, the accused must be given a fresh hearing after the district committee’s decision. The SDM of Kutiyana was tasked with granting Hiralba this opportunity, a safeguard meant to prevent a premature relinquishment of possession. However, Hiralba continues to label the thirteen properties as “disputed,” prompting the case to be forwarded to the police for criminal prosecution.

Implications and Outlook

If Chauladevi’s claim is upheld, it could set a precedent for the restitution of assets tied to deceased political figures, reinforcing the principle that personal claims cannot override statutory land‑ownership rules. Conversely, a ruling in Hiralba’s favour would underscore the complexity of probate claims and the enduring influence of strong‑man networks in Gujarat’s political‑economic landscape. Either outcome will reverberate through the state’s ongoing battle against land‑grabbing and highlight the need for stricter enforcement of property‑related statutes.