# Prabhu Narayan Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 169
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-13
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 4852 of 2022
- **Bench:** Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prabhu-narayan-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51167
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law-The Constitution of India,1950Artcle 227- When ownership of disputed
property has been determined by a competent
revenue court, the revisionist cannot claim
possession over it against wishes of its real
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
owner---The disputed land was purchased by
mother of respondent nos.2 to 5 through
registered sale deed and the names of
respondent nos.2 to 5 have already been
recorded in the revenue record---Petitioners
have failed to prove their ownership or title in
respect of the disputed property---Petitioners
have no right or claim in respect of disputed
property in absence of any registered sale deed
in their favour---No ground for interference is
made out.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Prabhu Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
169
Investigating Officer who claims to have
recovered
the
skeleton
on
cross
examination by the defence could not point
out the time when he along with his team
had gone from the police station and further
does not remember whether the same
stands mentioned in the GD report. One
further question being raised to him, he
showed his inability to apprise at what time
the P.W. 1 and his wife were informed for
identification of the skeleton.

33. The aforesaid circumstances itself
creates a doubt upon the credibility of the
prosecution story. Nonetheless, the entire
prosecution
story
is
based
upon
circumstantial evidence and it is not a case
of eye witness testimony. Thus, an
obligation stood cast upon the prosecution
to complete the chain in all respect so as to
indicate the guilt of the accused and
exclude any other theory of the crime.

34. Plainly and simply, merely on the
basis of the statements of two prosecution
witnesses namely P.W. 2, Muddashir and
P.W. 3 Junaid the accused Sajid cannot be
said to have commissioned the crime
particularly when the overall circumstances
do not support the prosecution case.

35.
Cumulatively
giving
anxious
consideration to the judgment and the order
passed by the learned trial court acquitting
the accused, this Court finds that the
learned trial court has not committed any
palpable illegality or perversity as the
learned trial court has appreciated each and
every aspect of the matter from the four
corners of law while acquitting the accused.
The view taken by the trial court is a
possible and plausible view based upon not
only the appreciation of the testimony of
the
prosecution
witnesses
and
the
documents so adduced therein but also
upon the cardinal principles of law which
govern the subject in question.

36. Thus, this Court has no option but
to concur that the judgment and order of
the trial court whereby the accused herein
has been acquitted.

37. Resultantly, no ground is made so
as to accord leave to appeal. Accordingly,
leave to appeal is rejected. As the leave to
appeal
stands
rejected,
thus,
the
Government Appeal instituted by the
appellant under Section 378(3) of the
Cr.P.C. and the appeal of the informant
under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. also
stands rejected.

38. The records be sent back to the
court below.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 169
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 4852 of 2022

Prabhu Narayan Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Abhishek Ankur Chaurasia, Ayush Mishra,
Diwan Saifullah Khan, Sunil Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anant Prakash Mishra, G.A.

Civil Law-The Constitution of India,1950Artcle 227- When ownership of disputed
property has been determined by a competent
revenue court, the revisionist cannot claim
possession over it against wishes of its real
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
owner---The disputed land was purchased by
mother of respondent nos.2 to 5 through
registered sale deed and the names of
respondent nos.2 to 5 have already been
recorded in the revenue record---Petitioners
have failed to prove their ownership or title in
respect of the disputed property---Petitioners
have no right or claim in respect of disputed
property in absence of any registered sale deed
in their favour---No ground for interference is
made out.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Criminal
Revision
No.140
of
1990
(Mohammad Hasen & ors.Vs Nazir Hasan & ors.)
decided on 10.4.2000

2. Criminal Revision (Defective) No.342 of 2010
(Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs St. of U.P. & anr.)
decided on 4.9.2015

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Chandra
Dixit, J.)

1. This petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India has been filed on
behalf of petitioners for quashing the
judgment and order dated 04.05.2022
passed by Additional Sessions Judge /
Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act) Court
No. 1, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No.
257 of 2018 and impugned order dated
29.09.2018 passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Pindra, District Varanasi in
Case No. 5/5/6/7/11/2012 (Lilawati Devi
vs. Prabhu Narayan Singh) by which
disputed land was released in favour of
private respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
mother of respondent nos. 2 to 5 namely
Lilawati had purchased 1.77 acer land of
Arazi No. 726 situated at Mauja Jathi,
Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi
through
registered
sale
deed
dated
24.04.2000 from Sabhajeet Singh on sale
consideration of Rs. 3,42,000/-. Smt.
Lilawati has applied mutation under section
34 of Land Revenue Act in the court of
Tehsildar, Pindra which was registered as
Case No. 417/74/1235 of 2000. The name
of Lilawati was mutated on 08.09.2005 and
the appeal preferred by the petitioners
against the order of mutation dated
08.09.2005
was
also
dismissed
on
10.06.2008. Smt. Lilawati had moved an
application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. with
the
allegation
that
the
opposite
parties/petitioners herein are interfering in
the peaceful possession and they may be
restrained not to cut Arhar crops and the
police protection be provided to the
applicant for cutting the crops.

3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pindra,
Varanasi had called upon a report from
Police Chowki Sindhaura, Police Station
Phoolpur, District Varanasi and on relying
the police report had issued notices to both
the parties to adduce evidence regarding
possession, vide order dated 15.04.2005.
The order of attachment under Section 146
Cr.P.C. was also passed attaching the crops
standing on the disputed land and the SHO,
Phoolpur was directed to handover the
possession of land as well as crops to any
independent person and also submit report.

4. Both the parties appearead before
the learned Magistrate and filed their reply.
The mother of respondent nos. 2 to 5 has
stated in her reply that the land in dispute
was purchased by her from Sabhajeet Singh
through
registered
sale
deed
dated
24.04.2000 and since then she is in
possession over the same. The opposite
parties have no concern with the disputed
land but being nephew of previous owner,
they are interfering in the possession of
applicant.
12 All. Prabhu Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171

5. The opposite parties/petitioners
herein had also filed reply stating therein
that they are nephew of Sabhajeet Singh
who died issue less. Sabhajeet Singh had
executed an agreement on 07.01.2000 in
favour of opposite parties on payment of
Rs. 75,000/- and they are in possession
over the disputed property. The possession
of applicant Lilawati on the disputed land
had been denied. It is further submitted that
the police had also submitted report in their
favour that they are in possession.

6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate after
considering the evidence adduced by the
parties had recorded the finding that the
mother of respondent nos. 2 to 5 namely
Lilawati had purchased the disputed land
on 24.04.2000 from Sabhajeet Singh
through registered sale deed. The Original
Suit 497 of 2000 filed by opposite parties
for cancellation of sale deed was dismissed
on 17.02.2001 and the appeal filed against
the order dated 17.02.2001 was also
dismissed by order dated 28.02.2001. The
suit filed by petitioner no.1 Prabhu Narayan
Singh under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act was also dismissed for want of
prosecution on 28.01.2003. The learned
Magistrate further has recorded the finding
that on the basis of registered sale deed, the
name of Smt. Lilawati was got mutated on
08.09.2005 and the appeal preferred against
the order dated 08.09.2005 was dismissed
on 10.06.2008. After the death of Smt.
Lilawati, the names of private respondents
being legal heirs of Smt. Lilawati were also
recorded in the revenue records. The
learned Magistrate has also recorded the
finding that previous owner of disputed
land Sabhajeet Singh had denied the
execution of any agreement in favour of
petitioners and the sale deed dated
24.04.2018 executed in favour of Smt.
Lilawati was accepted. It was also admitted
that possession was delivered to Smt.
Lilawati at the time of execution of sale
deed. The learned Magistrate after found
that the mother of respondent nos. 2 to 5
was in possession on the basis of registered
sale deed executed prior to preliminary
order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C.,
and as such, the order of attachment dated
16.04.2005 was withdrawn by order dated
29.9.2018 and land was released in favour
of private respondents.

7. Being aggrieved with the order of
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
dated
29.09.2018, the petitioners have preferred
criminal revision before the Additional
Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Anti
Corruption Act), Court No. 1, Varanasi
which was registered as Criminal Revision
No. 257 of 2018.

8.
The
revisional
court
after
considering
the
entire
evidence
and
materials which are available on record has
recorded the finding that the private
respondents are in possession over the
disputed property on the basis of registered
sale
deed.
The
mother
of
private
respondents was bona-fide purchasers of
land in question and sale deed as well as
possession was admitted by the previous
owner of disputed land. The revisional
court has further recorded the finding that
even it is assumed that petitioners were in
possession as per police report and report
of Advocate Commissioner, the possession
of petitioners was unlawful. The revisional
court has also recorded the finding that the
mother of respondent nos. 2 to 5 was bonafide purchaser of land in dispute and was in
possession over the same. The petitioners
have no right or title over the disputed land.
The criminal revision filed by petitioners
was dismissed by the revisional court by
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment and order dated 04.05.2022,
which is impugned in the present petition.

9. Heard Sri D.S. Khan and Sri S.K.
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Standing Counsel for respondent
no. 1 State of U.P., Sri Anant Prakash
Mishra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of private respondents and perused
the record.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners that the petitioners are in
possession over the property in dispute.
The property in question was belonging to
uncle of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely
Sabhajeet Singh who died issue less and the
petitioners are cultivating the crops from
the life time of Sabhajeet Singh and even
after his death they are continuously
cultivating the disputed land and are in
possession over the same. The uncle had
also executed an agreement in favour of
petitioners after receiving payment of
Rs.75,000/-.
The
Police
Chowki,
Sindhaura, Police Station Phoolpur has
submitted report on 03.04.2005 in the
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
stating therein that petitioner nos. 1 and 2
are in possession over the disputed land and
they cultivating over the same. The
possession of petitioners was established
from the police report.

11. It is further submitted that the
mother of respondent nos. 2 to 5 was never
in possession. In the suit filed by
petitioners being Original Suit No. 497 of
2000 for cancellation of sale deed, the
Advocate Commissioner was visited at the
spot and has also submitted the report that
the petitioners are in possession. The
learned Magistrate without considering the
report of concerned police station as well as
Advocate
Commissioner
regarding
possession of petitioners had released the
disputed
land
in
favour
of
private
respondents. The learned Magistrate has
failed to consider that the petitioners were
in possession at the time of proceedings
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Both the courts
below have failed to appreciate the
evidence regarding possession which are in
favour of petitioners, have passed the
impugned orders which are liable to be set
aside by this Hon'ble Court.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of private respondents
submits that the mother of respondent nos. 2 to
5 namely Smt. Lilawati is bona-fide purchaser
of disputed land from Sri Sabhajeet Singh
through registered sale deed and she was in
possession over the same from the date of
purchase. After the death of Smt. Lilawati, the
respondent nos. 2 to 5 being legal heirs are in
possession. The names of respondent nso. 2 to
5 are also recorded in revenue records. The
suit filed by petitioners for cancellation of sale
deed was dismissed by the competent civil
court and appeal preferred by petitioners was
also dismissed by the lower appellate court.
The suit filed by petitioners under Section
229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was also
dismissed. Lastly, it is submitted that both the
courts below after found that the land was
purchased by Smt. Lilawati, mother of
respondent nos. 2 to 5 and her name was got
mutated in revenue record, her possession was
admitted by previous owner and as such has
rightly passed the orders in favour of
respondent nos. 2 to 5. The petitioners have
failed to make out any case in their favour and
no ground for interference is made out. The
criminal revision is devoid of merits and is
liable to be dismissed with cost.

13. Considered the rival submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
12 All. Prabhu Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173

14.
Admittedly,
the
mother
of
respondent nos. 2 to 5 had purchased the
piece of land of Arazi No. 726 area 1.77
acres through registered sale deed dated
24.04.2000 from Sabhajeet Singh, the uncle
of petitioner nos.1 and 2. The name of Smt.
Lilawati was got mutated in revenue
record.
The
previous
owner
of
land/executor of sale deed was also
admitted the possession of Smt. Lilawati.
The Original Suit No. 497 of 2000 filed by
petitioners for cancellation of sale deed was
dismissed on 17.02.2001 and the Civil
Appeal filed by the petitioners was also
dismissed. After the death of Smt. Lilawati,
the names of respondents nos. 2 to 5 being
legal heirs were also recorded in the
revenue record. The uncle of petitioner nos.
1 and 2 namely Sabhajeet Singh had denied
the agreement dated 07.01.2000 alleged to
be executed in favour of petitioners. The
orders of civil court are also in favour of
respondent nos. 2 to 5. The petitioners have
no right or title over the disputed land and
the
police
as
well
as
Advocate
Commissioner have submitted incorrect
report in favour of petitioners. The
petitioners have failed to adduce any
evidence in respect of ownership of
disputed land. The law has been settled by
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court
in series of cases that right of bona-fide
purchaser cannot be disturbed by any
stranger.

15. The similar and identical issue has
been decided by this Court in Criminal
Revision No.140 of 1990 (Mohammad
Hasen and others Vs. Nazir Hasan and
others) decided on 10.4.2000. The relevant
para 6 is reproduced herein below:-

"In the present case admittedly a
sale deed has been executed in favour of
opposite party Nos.1 to 3 by Sultan. There
was only an agreement to sale in favour of
the revisionist by Sultan. It is not denied
that on the basis of the said agreement the
revisionists filed a suit for specific
performance of contract of sale which have
been dismissed and the appeal filed by the
revisionists have also been dismissed. If it
is so, it can not be said that the revisionists
are in possession of the disputed property
and the finding of the learned Magistrate
was perverse and against the evidence and
was rightly set aside by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge."

16. This Court in the case of Criminal
Revision (Defective) No.342 of 2010 (Smt.
Shakuntala Devi Vs. State of U.P. and
another) decided on 4.9.2015, has held that
when ownership of disputed property has
been determined by a competent revenue
court,
the
revisionist
cannot
claim
possession over it against wishes of its real
owner. The relevant paras 7 and 8 are
quoted herein below:-

"7. It is admitted fact that
revisionist (Shakuntala Devi, wife of Ram
Shabd) is not owner and the disputed plot.
According to her own version she had been
promised by original owners that sale-deed
of said property would be executed in her
favour, but the same was never executed. It
is settled legal position that without
registered transfer-deed she cannot be the
owner of the said property; and such deed
was never executed. It is also not disputed
that previous owners of disputed property
had executed registered sale-deed of said
property in favour of Vikas, whose name
has been mutated over said disputed
agricultural property by competent revenue
court.
When
ownership
of
disputed
property has been determined by a
competent revenue court, then revisionist
cannot claim possession over it against
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wishes of its real owner, i.e. opposite party
no. 2 Vikas. Proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. is
initiated
as
interim
measure
for
maintaining peace till decision of right and
title relating to subject matter. In present
competent court had already decided the
ownership right and title of respondent no.-
2 (Vikas) over disputed property. As
discussed above claim of revisionist over
disputed property is proved ba seless and
without any right. Therefore he had no
right to assert any claim over disputed
property.

8. Apart from it, record reveals
that after obtaining report and considering
facts and circumstance relating to the
matter
in
question,
and
also
after
application of mind, the SDM, Bansi had
come to conclusion that there is no
likelihood of breach of peace in respect
disputed property. This finding of the court
below is based on facts , before the Court
below and appears to be proper and
correct. Such finding cannot be interfered
with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
In
absence
of
any
likelihood
or
apprehension of breach of peace, the court
below was perfectly justified in dropping
and ending the proceedings under section
145 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order. There
is no illegality, impropriety or error in the
impugned
order
that
may
require
interference through exercise of revisional
jurisdictional."

17. In the present case also the
disputed land was purchased by mother of
respondent nos.2 to 5 through registered
sale deed and the names of respondent
nos.2 to 5 have already been recorded in
the revenue record. The petitioners have
failed to prove their ownership or title in
respect of the disputed property. The
petitioners have no right or claim in respect
of disputed property in absence of any
registered sale deed in their favour. Both
the courts below after considering the
evidence and materials which are available
on record, has rightly passed the orders in
favour of private respondents and there is
no illegality in any manner.

18. No ground for interference is made
out. The matter under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is devoid of merit and
is liable to be dismissed.

19.
The
petition
is
dismissed,
accordingly.

20. Interim order, if any, stands
discharged.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 174
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7549 of 2022
Connected with
Application U/S 482 No. 29958 of 2019

Smt. Rashmi Sundrani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Mohd. Aslam Azhar Khan, Sri Rajeev
Ratan Shukla, Sri R.P. Chauhan (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Aman Kumar, Sri Ayush Mishra, Sri
Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi, G.A., Sri Gaurav
Tiwari, sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, Sri Udai
Chandani

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 & 190 - The
investigating agency has ample power with