# Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 365
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-02-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.10419 of 2005
- **Bench:** M.K. Mittal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-raj-singh-v-deputy-land-40915
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482offence under Section 420 IPC allegation
against
the
applicant-by
forged
resolution of L.M.C. got allotted the land
of
Gaon
Sabha-not
eligible
personencroached upon the right of SC/SC-FIR
lodged by A.C.O.-while under section 198
(4) of U.P.Z.& L.R. Act-only the collector
empowered
to
take
action-held-FIR
lodged by A.C.O. without authority of
law-criminal
proceeding
liable
to
quashed.

Held: Para 9

Therefore, in my opinion the contention
as raised by the learned counsel for the
applicants
that
the
Assistant
Consolidation Officer had no authority to
file this first information report is
correct.
Therefore
the
report
being
without
any
right
the
criminal
proceeding cannot continue on the basis
thereof. Moreover as mentioned above,
the fact whether the allotment is legal or
not is still subjudice and has to be
decided in the writ petition no. 46405 of

## Text

2 All] Kailash and others V. State of U.P. and others
365

13. While deciding the said case
Court placed reliance on its earlier
judgment in Tota Ram Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 280. The Court
further
rejected
the
contention
that
limitation would run from the date of
knowledge
distinguishing
the
earlier
judgments on fact and law in Raja Harish
Chandra Raj Singh Vs. Deputy Land
Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500;
and State of Punjab Vs. Qaisar Jehan
Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604.

14. In Union of India Vs. Munshi
Ram & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1716, the
Apex Court has laid down the law that
such an application is maintainable
provided a person has not filed an
application under Section 18 of the Act.
The Court held that Section 28-A seeks to
confer
the
benefit
of
enhanced
compensation on those owners who did
not seek Reference under Section 18. In
fact under the said provision they are
entitled
for
enhanced
compensation
decreed by the Reference Court and
further as the decreed amount stands
modified in appeal by the higher Courts.

15. The order impugned dated
23.02.2004 has been passed by the
Reference Court placing reliance upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Smt Bhagti (Dead) through L.Rs.
Jagdish Ram Sharma Vs. State of
Haryana, JT 1997 (2) SC 291; and Vishav
Bandhu Gupta & Anr Vs. State of
Haryana & Anr, 2002 (1) CRC 145,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that if a person has not filed the
Reference under Section 18 of the Act he
cannot maintain the application under
Section 28-A. The view taken by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in these two cases
is apparently in contravention of the
statutory provision itself and also run
counter to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein
above. The said judgments do not lay
down the correct legal proposition.

16. In view of the above, the order
impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law and is liable to be quashed.

17. The petition succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned order dated
23.02.2004 is hereby set aside. The case is
remitted to the learned Reference Court to
redetermine the whole issue addressing
itself to the issue of maintainability,
limitation, and then to decide on merit. In
view of the fact that long time has elapsed
and the land has been acquired long back,
learned Reference Court is requested to
decide the controversy at the earliest.

Learned Standing Counsel and Shri
Shrikant,
Advocate,
appeared
for
respondents.

Petition allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.K. MITTAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.10419 of
2005

Kailash and others

...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Gautam Chaudhary

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482offence under Section 420 IPC allegation
against
the
applicant-by
forged
resolution of L.M.C. got allotted the land
of
Gaon
Sabha-not
eligible
personencroached upon the right of SC/SC-FIR
lodged by A.C.O.-while under section 198
(4) of U.P.Z.& L.R. Act-only the collector
empowered
to
take
action-held-FIR
lodged by A.C.O. without authority of
law-criminal
proceeding
liable
to
quashed.

Held: Para 9

Therefore, in my opinion the contention
as raised by the learned counsel for the
applicants
that
the
Assistant
Consolidation Officer had no authority to
file this first information report is
correct.
Therefore
the
report
being
without
any
right
the
criminal
proceeding cannot continue on the basis
thereof. Moreover as mentioned above,
the fact whether the allotment is legal or
not is still subjudice and has to be
decided in the writ petition no. 46405 of
2005. In case it is found that allotments
are not legal. the collector can take
necessary action as permissible under
law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. K. Mittal. J.)

1. Application has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
criminal case no. 1704 of 2001 State Vs.
Saroj and other under Section 420 IPC,
P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh pending
in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge, (J.D.)
Aligarh.

2. Heard Sri Gautam Chaudhary,
learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. and perused the record.

3. In this matter, notices were issued
to opposite party no. 2 and 3 which have
been served on them. No counter affidavit
has been filed by any of the opposite
Parties.

4. The brief facts are that opposite
party no.2 who was posted as Assistant
Consolidation
Officer,
Tehsil
Kher,
District Aligarh lodged a first information
report against the applicant on 26.4.2001
at 6.20 p.m. alleging that the applicants on
the basis of resolution dated 19.4.1986 of
Land Management Committee and in
collusion with the officers and officials of
the consolidation and revenue department
obtained the order of mutation from
Consolidation Officer Sadar, Aligarh on
5.5.1998 in respect of Gram Samaj Land
situate
in
Mauja
Jalakaseru,
Tehsil
Gawana, District Aligarh. Mutation was
also done in their names, although the
applicants belong to the general caste and
were not eligible in view of the long list
of landless labourers belonging to the
Scheduled Caste etc. In this manner, they
encroached
upon
the
right
of
the
scheduled Caste landless labourers and
also damaged the Gram Samaj property.
On the basis of this report, a case was
registered and after investigation charge
sheet
was
submitted
against
the
applicants.
Learned
Magistrate
took
cognizance and directed to summon the
accused persons by order dated 7.7.2005.

5. The contention of the applicants is
that the Land Management Committee
had passed a resolution recommending
the allotment of land in favour of the
applicant and the same was approved on
10.10.1986. Thereafter by order dated
5.5.1998 passed by the Consolidation
officer, mutation was directed to be
affected in their names. Against that order
objections
were
filed
before
the
Settlement Officer Consolidation and he
allowed the objection by order dated
2 All] Kailash and others V. State of U.P. and others
367
3.5.2001. A revision no. 172/139 was
filed against the order dated 3.5.2001
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and he by order dated
7.6.2003
dismissed
the
revision.
Thereafter applicants filed a writ petition
no. 29461 of 2003 and by order dated
16.7.2003 operation of the impugned
orders dated 3.5.2001 and 7.6.2003 was
stayed.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
while
dismissing
the
revision on 7.6.2003 had also observed
that the matter was already pending
before the Collector and according to his
order the parties could take legal action in
the competent Court. The Additional
Collector, Administration, Aligarh by
order dated 22.1.2004 held that the Land
Management Committee had passed the
valid resolution and same was approved
on 10.10.1986 and the complaint was
made after 17-1 years on 9.5.2003. He
also held that resolution was passed in
favour of 71 persons and out of them
mutation was done in favour of 35
persons. Against this order a revision no.
96/2004 was filed before the Assistant
Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra and he
by order dated 24.2.2005 partly allowed
the revision and remanded the matter to
the Collector. Against that order the
applicants filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition
no. 46405 of 2005 and by order dated
7.7.2005 the operation of the impugned
order dated 24.2.2005 has been stayed. It
appears that this writ petition is still
pending and it shows that the question
whether the allotment was legal or not is
still subjudice.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants
has contended that the collector is
competent authority under Section 198(4)
of U.P. Z.A. & L. R Act to see whether
the allotment of the Gram Samaj Land has
been properly made or not and that the
Assistant Consolidation Officer had no
occasion or authority to lodge any first
information report against the applicants.

7. Section 198 (4) of U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Act provides that Collector may of
his own motion and shall on the
application of any person aggrieved by an
allotment of land inquire in the manner
prescribed into such allotment and if he is
satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he
may cancel the allotment and the lease, if
any. Sub Section (7) of the aforesaid
Section provides the consequence that
shall ensue in case the allotment or lease
is cancelled under Sub Section (4)).

8. In the circumstances of the case,
Consolidation Officer had directed for
mutation of the names of the applicants
by order dated 5.5.1998. The objection
filed before the Settlement Officer against
that order was decided on 3.5.2001. The
first information report was lodged by
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
on
26.4.2001. The copy of this report has
been filed as annexure no. 2 by the
applicants. There is no mention in this
report as to under what authority or order
the Assistant Consolidation Officer was
competent to lodge this report. According
to the allegations as made in the report,
applicants had obtained mutation order
from
the
Consolidation
Officer
in
collusion
with
the
officers
of
the
consolidation and revenue department by
producing the photocopy of the resolution
dated 19.4.1986 i.e. they had played fraud
on the consolidation Court

9. In the circumstances, if any
complaint was required to be filed, it
could be filed by the Settlement Officer or
any Court Officer senior to him and not
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
Therefore, in my opinion the contention
as raised by the learned counsel for the
applicants
that
the
Assistant
Consolidation Officer had no authority to
file this first information report is correct.
Therefore the report being without any
right the criminal proceeding cannot
continue on the basis thereof. Moreover
as mentioned above, the fact whether the
allotment is legal or not is still subjudice
and has to be decided in the writ petition
no. 46405 of 2005. In case it is found that
allotments are not legal. the collector can
take necessary action as permissible under
law.

10.

With
this
observation,
application is allowed and the criminal
proceedings in case no. 1704 of 2001
State Vs. Saroj and others Under Section
420 IPC, P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh
pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge
(J.D.), Aligarh are hereby quashed.
Petition allowed
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No.
308 Of 2006

Kali Charan and others
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Sri Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Y.S. Bohra
Sri Parmendra Kumar
A.G.A.

Criminal
Procedure
Code-Transfer
of
Session
Trail
from
one
District
to
another-on the ground of long standing
enmity and series of crimes lodged from
both side-various orders passed by High
Court-held-sufficient for transfer of case
from Bulandshahar to District Judge,
Ghaziabad.

Held: Para 6

After
hearing
the
counsel
for
the
respective parties at length and taking
into consideration the entire facts and
circumstances and also the series of
crime by both the sides as a result of
long standing enmity, I am of the
considered view that the trial should be
held some where else to ensure that it is
completed expeditiously. The various
orders passed by this Court are sufficient
to come to a conclusion that if the trial is
permitted to continue at Bulandshahar,
the danger of repetition of the offences
on either side will continue to loom
large.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
counsel for the applicants, Sri Y.S. Bohra
Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 and
learned A.G.A, for the State.

2. This is transfer application for
transferring the Sessions Trial No. 1144
of 2001, arising out of case Crime No.
493 of 1999, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 302 I.P.C., State Vs. Kali Charan and
others to some other adjoining district.
3. The submission is that two
persons namely Jagpal son of Desh Raj,
and Satyapal son of Jagpal have lost their
life. The case was committed to the court
of Sessions. It appears that both the
parties have a long standing enmity.
Another first information report was