# Gulzari Lal v. Babu Ram & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 943
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-08
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gulzari-lal-v-babu-ram-ors-44089
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Shri VBL Srivastava, Shri Ajay Srivastava, Shri Arun Srivastava, S.C.

Held -

Para 1: The court heard the petitioner's counsel and proceeded ex parte (without the presence of the
respondents) as no one appeared for the respondents despite the case being called.
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Para 2: The petitioner, Gulzari Lal (represented by legal heirs), challenged the Deputy Director of
Consolidation (DDC) order dated 17.09.1971. The DDC had declared Respondents 1-3 as "Sirdars" and
directed they be recorded as "Asamis" for three years under the 1947 Amendment Act.
Para 3: The dispute involves Khata No. 135 (Plots 221, 224, 225) in Village Chilsari. The petitioner claimed
"Sirdar" rights based on a 1943 lease from the Zamindar and continuous cultivation since then.
Para 4: Consolidation proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, commenced in the
village.
Para 5: Respondents 1-3 filed objections claiming they were co-tenure holders with the petitioner. They
admitted being ejected via a 1942 compromise decree but claimed a right to reinstatement under Section 27
of the 1947 Amendment Act.
Para 6: The Consolidation Officer (CO) initially rejected the objections. After an appeal and a remand order
(which was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents in High Court), the matter returned to the CO.
Para 7: Before the CO, the respondents added a plea that the 1942 compromise was obtained through fraud.
They produced various historical land records (Dakhalnama, Khasra) to support their claim for reinstatement.
Para 8: The CO framed four specific issues to determine who-among the various claimants-was entitled to
be declared "Sirdar" of the disputed land.
Para 9: Respondent 2 admitted they had been out of possession since 1943 but maintained the ejectment was
due to fraud by the Zamindar's agent.
Para 10: The court lists the documentary evidence considered, including the 1942 decree, 1943 Dakhalnama,
and subsequent orders from the Board of Revenue.
Para 11: The CO found no evidence of fraud and noted that the State and Zamindar were not impleaded as
required. Finding the petitioner was in possession in 1356 and 1359 Fasli, the CO declared the petitioner the
"Sirdar" under Section 19 of the 1951 Act and rejected the respondents' claims.
Para 12: The respondents appealed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) upheld the CO's decision,
confirming that fraud was not proved and that the recorded occupants (including the petitioner) had become
"Sirdars."
Para 13: On revision, the DDC reversed the lower orders. Relying on specific case law, the DDC held that the
respondents were protected by Section 27 of the 1947 Amendment Act despite the 1951 Act.
Para 14: This paragraph reproduces the text of Section 27 of the Amendment Act, 1947, detailing the
conditions under which ejected tenants can apply for reinstatement.
Para 15: The Court analyzes Section 27, noting that sub-section (2) (regarding fraud) does not apply here
because the DDC himself found that the respondents failed to prove any fraud or coercion.
Para 16: Regarding Section 27(1), the record shows the respondents were not forcibly ejected but left via a
mutual compromise decree in 1942.
Para 17: This paragraph reproduces Section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, which deals with ejectment
for illegal transferring or sub-letting.
Para 18: The Court concludes that because there was no finding of illegal sub-letting and the tenants vacated
voluntarily via compromise, Section 27(1) is not attracted. The DDC erred in applying this law.
Para 19: The writ petition is allowed. The DDC's order is set aside, and the original orders of the CO and SOC
(favoring the petitioner) are restored.
Para 20: No costs were awarded.

Case Laws Cited:-
Ram Surat Mishra Vs. Ram Lagan Tewari, 1958 RD 15.
Gopal Narain and another Vs. Kanchanlal and others, AIR 1971 All 556.

## Text

7 All. Gulzari Lal Vs Babu Ram & Ors.
943
 (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if
the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with
the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code."

12. A perusal of the record shows that the place, date, time and the parties involved in the
occurrence are the same and in respect of the same occurrence, a State Case and Complaint Case
are pending in two different Courts and the police has submitted charge-sheet in the State Case,
hence in view of sub-section (2) of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. as cited above and to avoid
contradictory findings by two different court's on the same issues, this application deserves to be
allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

13. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

14. The impugned order dated 2.3.2013 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2,
Varanasi in Crl. Revision No.377 of 2012 is set-aside and the trial of both the cases are directed to
be clubbed together and be disposed of in accordance with law.

15. Copy of this order be sent to the Courts below for further compliance.
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Writ B No.- 8689 Of 1971

Gulzari Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
Babu Ram & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri S.M. Dayal, Shri A.P. Srivastava, Shri J.N. Yadav, Shri Kamlesh Kumar Gangawar, Shri M.N. Singh, Shri
Radhey Shayam, Shri Satyendra Naryan Singh.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri VBL Srivastava, Shri Ajay Srivastava, Shri Arun Srivastava, S.C.

Held -

Para 1: The court heard the petitioner's counsel and proceeded ex parte (without the presence of the
respondents) as no one appeared for the respondents despite the case being called.
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Para 2: The petitioner, Gulzari Lal (represented by legal heirs), challenged the Deputy Director of
Consolidation (DDC) order dated 17.09.1971. The DDC had declared Respondents 1-3 as "Sirdars" and
directed they be recorded as "Asamis" for three years under the 1947 Amendment Act.
Para 3: The dispute involves Khata No. 135 (Plots 221, 224, 225) in Village Chilsari. The petitioner claimed
"Sirdar" rights based on a 1943 lease from the Zamindar and continuous cultivation since then.
Para 4: Consolidation proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, commenced in the
village.
Para 5: Respondents 1-3 filed objections claiming they were co-tenure holders with the petitioner. They
admitted being ejected via a 1942 compromise decree but claimed a right to reinstatement under Section 27
of the 1947 Amendment Act.
Para 6: The Consolidation Officer (CO) initially rejected the objections. After an appeal and a remand order
(which was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents in High Court), the matter returned to the CO.
Para 7: Before the CO, the respondents added a plea that the 1942 compromise was obtained through fraud.
They produced various historical land records (Dakhalnama, Khasra) to support their claim for reinstatement.
Para 8: The CO framed four specific issues to determine who-among the various claimants-was entitled to
be declared "Sirdar" of the disputed land.
Para 9: Respondent 2 admitted they had been out of possession since 1943 but maintained the ejectment was
due to fraud by the Zamindar's agent.
Para 10: The court lists the documentary evidence considered, including the 1942 decree, 1943 Dakhalnama,
and subsequent orders from the Board of Revenue.
Para 11: The CO found no evidence of fraud and noted that the State and Zamindar were not impleaded as
required. Finding the petitioner was in possession in 1356 and 1359 Fasli, the CO declared the petitioner the
"Sirdar" under Section 19 of the 1951 Act and rejected the respondents' claims.
Para 12: The respondents appealed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) upheld the CO's decision,
confirming that fraud was not proved and that the recorded occupants (including the petitioner) had become
"Sirdars."
Para 13: On revision, the DDC reversed the lower orders. Relying on specific case law, the DDC held that the
respondents were protected by Section 27 of the 1947 Amendment Act despite the 1951 Act.
Para 14: This paragraph reproduces the text of Section 27 of the Amendment Act, 1947, detailing the
conditions under which ejected tenants can apply for reinstatement.
Para 15: The Court analyzes Section 27, noting that sub-section (2) (regarding fraud) does not apply here
because the DDC himself found that the respondents failed to prove any fraud or coercion.
Para 16: Regarding Section 27(1), the record shows the respondents were not forcibly ejected but left via a
mutual compromise decree in 1942.
Para 17: This paragraph reproduces Section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, which deals with ejectment
for illegal transferring or sub-letting.
Para 18: The Court concludes that because there was no finding of illegal sub-letting and the tenants vacated
voluntarily via compromise, Section 27(1) is not attracted. The DDC erred in applying this law.
Para 19: The writ petition is allowed. The DDC's order is set aside, and the original orders of the CO and SOC
(favoring the petitioner) are restored.
Para 20: No costs were awarded.

Case Laws Cited:-
Ram Surat Mishra Vs. Ram Lagan Tewari, 1958 RD 15.
Gopal Narain and another Vs. Kanchanlal and others, AIR 1971 All 556.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
7 All. Gulzari Lal Vs Babu Ram & Ors.
945
1. Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of
respondents though the case is called in revised, hence I have proceeded ex parte against
respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner, Gulzari Lal (now deceased and substituted
by legal heirs) assailing the order dated 17.09.1971 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Jalaun, Camp at Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as the "DDC"), whereby it has allowed
Revisions No. 220, 221 and 222 declaring Babu Ram, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal as "Sirdars" of
land in dispute. It has further held that under United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment Act, 1947") persons recorded in basic year are entitled
to retain possession upto three years from the date of reinstatement and such recorded persons shall
retain possession of disputed land for a period of three years from the date of Revisional order and
during such period they shall be recorded as "Asamis" over disputed land recorded in their names
in the basic year.

3. The dispute initially raised related to Khatas No. 135, 261 and 273 but petitioner claim is
in respect of Khata No. 135 of which he claims to be a Sirdar. The land is situated in Village
Chilsari, Pargana Shamsabad West, District Farrukhabad. Patta of land was taken from erstwhile
Zamindar in 1943 and he was cultivating same since then. Khata No. 135 comprised of Plots No.
221 (area 0.60 acres), 224 (area 0.72 acres) and 225 (area 0.63 acres).

4. Consolidation operations commenced in village under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1953").

5. Respondents-1 to 3, i.e., Babu Ram, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal, all are brothers and
sons of Mewa Ram, filed objections under Section 9(2) of Act, 1953 alleging that they were cotenants of disputed plots in Khata No. 273 and other plots comprised in Khatas no. 261 and 135.
They further alleged that they were co-tenure holders alongwith Sarnam Singh, Bramha Nand and
petitioner, Gulzari Lal. A suit was filed by the then Zamindar against all co-tenure holders in
respect of land comprised in Khatas no. 273, 261 and 135 under Section 171 of United Provinces
Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1939"), which was decreed in terms of
compromise dated 25.08.1942. Possession was obtained by Zamindar on 02.06.1943 under the
decree. Respondents-1 to 3 claimed that they are entitled to get restoration of possession under
Section 27 of Amendment Act, 1947. They further said that an application for reinstatement under
Section 10 of Amendment Act, 1947 was filed by them, which was decided against them upto
Board of Revenue but a writ petition filed by them was pending when village came under
consolidation operation.

6. The objections were rejected by Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as the
"CO") vide order dated 28.06.1964. Matter went in appeal and Appellate Authority remanded
matter directing CO to frame issues, record additional evidence and thereafter decide matter.
Revision against remand order of Appellate Authority was rejected and writ petition thereagainst
was also dismissed.
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. The matter again reached to CO. Objectors, Respondents-1 to 3, filed an amendment
application before CO adding plea of fraud and undue influence in respect of compromise dated
25.08.1942. Amendment was allowed. Respondents-1 to 3 filed before CO, copy of decree of suit
under Section 171 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1939"), copy of
Dakhalnama dated 02.06.1943, Khasra of 1348 Fasli and some other documents. It was also
brought before CO that after ejectment of Respondents-1 to 5, under decree dated 25.08.1942,
opposite parties 4 and 5 got a subsequent lease and plots are still in their names which are being
claimed by Respondents-1 to 3. Plots of Khata no. 135 were resettled with petitioner but same were
also claimed by Respondents 1 to 3.

8. CO formulated following four issues:

"1. Whether applicants Babu Ram, Munshi Lal alongwith Kanauli Lal are entitled
to be declared as Sirdar of the land in suit. If so its effect.

2. Whether Vidhya Ram, Puttu Lal and Hirday Ram are Sirdars of the land in suit.
If so its effect.

3. Whether Gulzari Lal is the Sirdar of the land in suit. If so, its effect.

4. Whether op. Sarnam Singh and Brahmanand are the Sirdars of the land in suit.
If so its effect."

9. Objector-Munshi Lal-Respondent-2, had admitted that since 02.06.1943 he and his two
brothers are out of possession. He however pleaded that said ejectment pursuant to compromise
decree dated 25.08.1942 was result of fraud and undue influence was exercised by Mukhtar-e-am
of Zamindar.

10. The documentary evidence included copy of decree dated 25.08.1942, Dakhalnama
dated 02.06.1943, extract of Khasra 1348 Fasli, uncertified copy of order of Additional Distirct
Magistrate (J) in Appeal No. 1/1960-61, copy of Board of Revenue's order dated 02.11.1961, copy
of order of J.O. Kaimganj dated 12.09.1960 and summons and copy of special writ petition filed
before High Court.

11. CO found that neither solitary oral evidence of Respondent- 2 was sufficient nor any
documentary evidence has been brought on record to prove plea of fraud. He also found that under
Section 27 of Amendment Act, 1947, Zamindar was necessary party but he was not impleaded.
Even State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha were not made parties. Petitioner-Gulzari Lal contesting matter
deposed that there was no fraud played by Mukhtar-e-Am of Zamindar. It was also brought to
notice of CO that Babu Ram, (Respondent 1), i.e., one of the objectiors, had taken some land from
Mukhtar-e-Am after eviction. Nathu Lal, Ex-Mukhtar-e-Am of Zamindar also deposed and proved
Dakhalnama in favour of Zamindar. He also proved Patta in favour of Vidhya Dhar; and Kabuliat in
favour of petitioner-Gulzari Lal and respondent 5-Brahma Nand. He also deposed that no fraud was
7 All. Gulzari Lal Vs Babu Ram & Ors.
947
played. Land in suit was occupied by Asamis, so they were ejected. Respondent-8-Vidhya
Dhar, also deposed that he took patta on 06.09.1943 from Zamindar which was executed by
Mukhtar-e-Am in respect of twelve plots wherein he has planted guava grove. In view of
evidence discussed above, CO held that recorded tenants were in possession over land in
suit in 1356 and 1359 Fasli and became "Sirdar" automatically under Section 19 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act,
1951"). He concluded that objectors have failed to prove that they were ejected under
Section 171 of Act, 1939 under fraud and influence. They have also failed to prove that
they were in possession over disputed land at the time of ejectment. Compromise shows
that they were not in possession, hence not entitled for benefit under Section 27(2) of
Amendment Act, 1947. While rejecting objections, CO passed following order:

 "The existing entries of plot 251 (0.3), 251/2.02, 254/1/.37, 223/.22 of
khata no. 261 in the names of Sarnam Singh and Brahma Nand son of Kamta and plot no.
80/.16, 81/.16, 217/.29, 218/.81 and 220/.92 of khata 273 in the name of Hirday Ram and
others and plot 221/0.60, 224/.72, and 225.60 of khata 135 in the name of Gulzari Lal
recorded tenants be continued in the same capacity.

The claim of Baburam, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal objectors over the
above plots is rejected."

12. The objectors preferred three appeals being Appeals No. 43, 44 and 45 under
Section 11(1) of Act, 1953. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as
the "SOC") observed that in basic year, Khata No. 135 is recorded in the name of Gulzari
Lal. Khata No. 261 was recorded in the names of Sarnam Singh and Brahmanand and
Khata No. 273 was recorded in the names of Hriday Ram, Putti Lal and Vidhya Dhar.
Ejectment, however, pleaded on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation was not proved in
absence of any evidence, hence findings recorded by CO were correct. He also found that
all respondents before him were occupants of land in dispute in 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli
and became "Sirdars". All appeals accordingly were dismissed vide order dated
18.05.1971.

13. Three Revisions No. 220, 221 and 222 were taken by objectors before DDC
under Section 48 of Act, 1953. DDC has held that under Section 171 of Act, 1939, tenants
who have illegally sub-let land to others had to be ejected. Relying on Ram Surat Mishra
Vs. Ram Lagan Tewari, 1958 RD 15, he has held that order of reinstatement could be
made in favour of persons applying for reinstatement and not in favour of others. DDC has
reversed orders of CO and SOC by relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Gopal Narain and another Vs. Kanchanlal and others, AIR 1971 All 556 observing that
even if proceedings could not be finalized upto the enactment of Act, 1951, still protection
of Section 27 of Amendment Act, 1947 could have been given.
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Section 27 was inserted vide Amendment Act, 1947 in Act, 1939 with a view to
give relief to certain tenants who had suffered at the hands of Zamindars. It reads as under:

 "27. Reinstatement of certain ejected tenants.-(1) If, on or after the first
day of January, 1940, any person was ejected from his holding or any part thereof-

(a) Under section 165 of the said Act for the non-payment of any amount
not exceeding one fourth of his annual rent after taking into account the payment, if any,
made by him outside the court, provided that such payment is supported by a receipt,

Or

(b) Under section 171 of the Act, otherwise than on the ground of an
illegal transfer by way of sale or gift,

Or
(c) Under section 180 of the said Act notwithstanding his having been
recorded as an occupant after the first day of January, 1938 in a record revised under
Chapter IV of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, or corrected by an officer
specially appointed by Government for the correction of annual registers in any tract,

He may apply, within six months from the date of the commencement of this
Act, to the Court, which passed the decree for his ejectment for reinstatement in such
holding or part thereof, as the case may be:

Provided that if such holding or part thereof was subject to a mortgage on
the date of ejectment under section 171 of the said Act, the mortgagor and not the
mortgagee shall be entitled to apply for re-instatement under this sub-section.

(2) If, on or after the first day of January, 1940, any tenant of sir, who had
become a hereditary tenant in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section
16 of the said Act was ejected from his holding or any part thereof, or any tenant was
dispossessed of his holding or any part thereof, through surrender or otherwise, in
consequence of any fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion practised
upon or against him by the landholder or by any person acting on behalf of the
landholder, he may apply, within six months from the date of the commencement of this
Act, to the court in which a suit would lie under section 183 of the said Act in respect of
such holding for his reinstatement in such holding or part thereof, as the case may be.

(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2),
the court shall give notice to the landholder and to the tenant, if any, in possession of the
whole or part of such holding. After making such enquiry as may be necessary if the court
is satisfied that the applicant was so ejected or dispossessed, if shall order that the
7 All. Gulzari Lal Vs Babu Ram & Ors.
949
applicant be re-instated in such holding or part thereof, as the case may be, and that any
other person in possession of it be ejected therefrom:

Provided that if such holding or any part thereof is in possession of any
person to whom the landholder had let it out before the first day of September, 1946, such
person not being a relation, dependent or servant of the landholder, the court, instead of
ordering the ejectment of such person, shall notwithstanding the provisions of any law for
the time being in force, declare him to be the sub-tenant of the application in respect of
such holding or such part. The person so declarated as a sub-tenant shall not be liable to
ejectment until after the expiry of three years from the date of the declaration. In such a
case, the rent payable by the applicant to the landholder shall be the rent payable by him
for such land before his ejectment or the amount calculated according to the circle rates;
whichever is less, and the rent payable to the applicant by the person declared as subtenant shall be the amount payable by such person to the landholder immediately before
the declaration of twelve and a half per cent, over and above the amount calculated
according to the circle rates application to hereditary tenants, whichever is higher.

(4) The applicant shall not be reinstated in such holding or in any part
thereof, unless within such time as may be allowed by the court, he pays to the
landholder-

(i) any amount that may have been paid to him by the landholder as
compensation for improvements when he was so ejected;

(ii) in a case in which the landholder has made any improvement on such
land since such ejectment, compensation for such improvement calculated in accordance
with the provisions of the said Act; and,

(iii) in a case falling under clause (a) of sub-section (1) the amount that
may be found to be due in accordance with that clause.

(5) On reinstatement, the right and liabilities of the applicant existing on
the date of his ejectment or dispossessed in respect of the holding or any part thereof from
which he was ejected or dispossessed, shall revive subject to the proviso to sub-section (3).

(6) An appeal against an order passed under this section shall lie to the
Collector whose appellant order shall be final."

15. Section 27(1) intends to give relief to the tenants who have been ejected under
Sections 165, 171 or 180 of Act, 1939. Section 27(2) intends to give relief to such tenants
who had surrendered their plots on account of fraud, undue influence or coercion on the
part of Zamindars. Even DDC has found that objectors could not adduce any evidence to
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

prove fraud, undue influence or coercion hence Section 27(2) was not at all attracted in the
case in hand.

16. So far as Section 27(1) is concerned, record shows that though suit was filed
seeking ejectment under Section 171 of Act, 1939 but parties entered into compromise and
suit was decreed in terms of compromise on 25.08.1942.

17. Section 171 of Act, 1939, reads as under:

 "171. Ejectment for illegal transfer, sub-letting.-(1) If a tenant
transfers, or sub- lets, the whole or any portion of his holding otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the transferee or sub-lessee has entered
into possession in pursuance of such transfer of sub-lease, both the tenant and any person
who may have thus obtained possession of the whole or any part of the holding shall, on
the suit of land-holder, be liable to ejectment from the area so transferred or sub-let at
the date of the institution of the suit:

Provided that, in the case of a voidable sub- lease, if the suit succeeds, the
Court shall pass a decree permitting the tenant to apply in the same proceedings, within a
time not exceeding one month from the date of the decree, for the ejectment of the person
in whose favour the voidable sub-lease has been made, and directing that if the tenant so
applies and if he ejects such person and resumes occupation of the land within such further
time as the Court, either in the decree itself or by means of a subsequent order, may fix
having regard to the provisions of Section 182, the decree shall not be executed against the
tenant except in respect of costs. In such a case, the decree shall direct that, if the tenant
either fails to apply for the ejectment of such person within the time fixed in this behalf or
fails to resume occupation within the further time allowed by the Court for that purpose,
the tenant as also the sub-lessee shall be ejected from the area sub-let at the date of the
institution of the suit."

(2) To every suit under this section both the tenant and the sub-tenant or the
person in whose favour the transfer purports to have been made shall be made parties."

18. There is no finding recorded by Revenue Court regarding alleged illegal
transfer, sub-letting etc. And on the contrary erstwhile tenants agreed to vacate land
through a compromise pursuant whereto suit was decreed in terms of compromise. It thus
cannot be said that ejectment of tenants was on account of the reasons justifying ejectment
under Section 171 of Act, 1939 and that being so I am of the view that even Section 27(1)
is not attracted in the case in hand and DDC in taking a view otherwise has erred in law.

19. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.09.1971 passed
by DDC is hereby set aside and the orders passed by CO and SOC are here by restored.
7 All. Brahm Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
951
20. No costs.
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 15609 Of 2016

Brahm Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri Chandra Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Shri D.S. Pandey

Held -

Para 1-2: The Court heard counsel for the petitioners, respondent no. 3, and the State. The petitioners sought
to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC at P.S. Sector-58, Noida.

Para 3: The FIR alleges that the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell land for Rs.39 lacs and received
Rs.16 lacs in advance. The informant later discovered the land had already been acquired by NOIDA
authorities.

Para 4: Petitioners argued the land was "Abadi land" (residential) and not acquired. They claimed they were
still ready to execute the sale deed if the respondent honored the agreement.

Para 5: Respondent no. 3 countered that the petitioners knowingly committed fraud by taking money for land
that had been acquired and could not be legally transferred.

Para 6-8: Citing Ajit Singh @ Muraha and Bhajan Lal, the Court noted it cannot interfere with investigations if
a cognizable offence is prima facie visible. The Court found that the FIR allegations did disclose a cognizable
offence.

Para 9: The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed for lack of merit.

Para 10: Following the dismissal, the petitioners requested a direction for the lower court to consider their bail
on the same day, citing the Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh precedents.

Para 11-12: The Court initially found this apprehension unfounded as the petitioners had not yet applied for
bail or surrendered. It noted that the law on this is already settled by a 7-Judge Bench.