The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Mohan Lal and Dheerendra Pratap, seeking quashing of the First Information Report in Case Crime No.692 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur with a further prayer not to take any coercive action against the petitioners and their family members in pursuance to the impugned FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.3 fraudulently got executed a sale deed of four plots i.e. Plots No.81, 66, 142 and 415 situated at Village-Dakhinwara, Pargana-Barosa, Tehsil-Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur on 07.01.2016 in the Office of Deputy Registrar, Sadar, District Sultanpur, taking undue advantage of petitioner's long critical aliment but no sale consideration was ever given. He further submits that the revenue record/Khatauni is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the petition in relation to the fasli year 1424-1429, which clearly reveals that Plot Nos.142, 66, 81 are recorded as Rasta, Naveen Parti and Nali which belong to the Gram Sabha and Plot No.415 is recorded in the names of Ram Lakhan, Dhruvesh Kumar, Kamlesh Kumar and Jagdamba Prasad. He further submits that on the basis of aforesaid sale deed, the land was mutated in the name of respondent No.3 vide order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Tehsildar- Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur. He further submits that as a matter of fact, U.P. Expressway Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as " UPEIDA") was in need of the land of Plot No.81 for construction of Samajwadi Purvanchal Expressway Project and by way of direct negotiation with the recorded tenure holder, the petitioner No.1 executed a sale deed of plot No.81 in favour of Nodal Officer dated 24.08.2016 in lieu of Rs.7,16,300/- in favour of Samajwadi Purvanchal Expressway Project, U.P. Expressway Industrial Development Authority C-13 Second Floor, Paryatan Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow through Shiv Naresh Singh S/o Kanchan Sigh, Naib Tehsildar, Sultanpur. He further submits that the petitioner No.1 moved a recall application in relation to the mutation order dated 22.03.2016 which was in favour of respondent No.3 and his application was registered as Case No.T-2016046806541. The then Tehsildar-Sadar, District Sultanpur had recalled the aforesaid mutation order dated 22.03.2016, vide order dated 08.12.2016 and the land was mutated in the name of petitioner No.1 and thereafter, on the basis of second sale deed dated 24.08.2016, Plot No.81 was mutated in the name of UPEIDA on 03.05.2018. He further submits that the petitioner No.1 filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.20740 (M/B) of 2018 (Mohan Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others) for payment of sale consideration of land of Khasra No.81 situated in Village-Dakhinwara, Pargana-Barosa, Tehsil-Jaisinghpu, District Sultanpur in lieu of consideration of sale dated 24.08.2016 in favour of Samajwadi Purvanchal Expressway Project and the present FIR is a counter blast to the aforesaid writ petition and no explanation has been given for inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and in the case of the Commissioner of Police & Ors Vs. Devender Anand & Ors in Criminal Appeal No.834 of 2017. He further submits that a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 07.01.2016 was filed by the petitioner No.1 on 24.08.2017, (plaint of the same is appended as Rejoinder Affidavit), therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary and impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submit that it is admitted on the part of the petitioners that Plot No.142, 66, 81 are recorded as Rasta, Naveen Parti, and Nali in the Katauni of fasli year 1424-1429 and similarly, the Plot No.415 was recorded in the name of Ram Lakhan and others not in the name of petitioners, (Khatuni is appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition filed by the petitioners) and this fact is also admitted in the pleading of writ petition. They further submit that this fact is also admitted by Tehsildar-Sadar, District-Sultanpur in order dated 13.12.2019. The relevant part of the order of Tehsildar is reproduced as under:-
"rglhy lnj fLFkr xzke nf[kuokjk ijxuk cjkSlk ftyk lqyrkuiqj dh [krkSuh lu 1424 rk 1429Q0 ds vuqlkj xkVk la[;k& [email protected] gs0 uohu ijrh] xkVk la[;k&[email protected] gs0 ukyh] xkVk la[;k&[email protected] gs0 jkLrk ,oa xkVk la[;k&[email protected] gs0 jkey[ku] /kzqos'k dqekj] txnEck izlkn lqrx.k vkse izdk'k rFkk deys'k dqekj lqr bUnz izdk'k fuoklh xzke izrkiiqj ds uke ladze.kh; Hkwfe/kj ntZ gSA Li"V gS fd iath;u foys[k esa vafdr leLr xkVs fodzsrk eksguyky ds uke vafdr ugha gS vkSj u gh mudk {ks=Qy foys[k esa vafdr {ks=Qy ls esy [kkrk gSA"
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submit that this fact was brought to the notice of officers of Samajwadi Purvanchal Expressway Project that the second sale deed is not permissible, therefore, the Nodal Officer, lodged FIR against the petitioner No.1 in Case Crime No.214 of 2016, under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. in which the charge-sheet was filed under Section 419, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and trial is pending in the court below against the petitioner No.1 for execution of second sale deed. They further submit that on the basis of incorrect facts, petitioner No.1 filed a Writ Petition No.20740 (M/B) of 2018 for payment of sale consideration in pursuance of the sale deed dated 24.08.2016 executed in favour of UPEEDA and Tehsildar-Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur filed a counter affidavit and informed that a letter has been sent to the Bank for non-payment of sale consideration of the petitioner No.1, but no such letter was sent to the Bank, as a result, Rs.7, 16,300/- was given to the petitioner No.1. The respondent No.3 filed a Writ Petition No.7431 (M/B) of 2019, then the District Magistrate, Sultanpur was directed for inquiry. The inquiry report clearly reveals that the sale consideration was transferred in the account of petitioner No.1 and same has been withdrawn and in the aforesaid inquiry, the then Tehsildar- Sadar, Sri Mahatma Singh and Sri Asha Ram, Verma (now promoted on the post of Sub-Divisional Magistrate) and Sri Shivnaresh Singh, Naib Tehsildar, District Sultanpur are found guilty and request has been made to the State Government as well as Chairman Board of Revenue for taking action against the erring officers and the recovery certificate was also issued against the petitioner No.1 on 17.10.2019. They further submit that first sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.3 by taking sale consideration of Rs.2 lac. They further submits that the petitioner No.1 cheated with the collusion of petitioner No.2 and Tehsil Authorities, therefore, FIR is liable to the dismissed.
Considering the argument of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, as it is admitted by the petitioners on the basis of revenue record as mentioned in Annexure-5 that the petitioner No.1 was not a recorded tenure holder of Plot No.415, 142, 66 and 81. The Plot No.415 was recorded in the name of Ram Lakhan & others and Plot no.142, 66 and 81 are recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, as Rasta, Naveen Parti and Nali and this fact is also admitted by the Tehsildar in its order dated 13.12.2019. It is also relevant to point out that the petitioners have annexed an inquiry report of Naveena Shukla, Circle Officer, District Sultanpur which was conducted under the order of District Magistrate dated 26.08.2016 in which it is admitted that Sub-Divisional Magistrate- Sadar, District Sultanpur, reported that plot No.66, 81, 142 are recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as Rasta, Naveen Parti and Nali and plot No.415 is recorded in the name of Ram Lakhan and petitioner No.1-Mohand Lal is not recorded tenure holder of the aforesaid plot, therefore, he is guilty for execution of the sale deed. The decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Commissioner of Police & Ors Vs. Devender Anand & Ors (supra) are not applicable in the present case, as the petitioner No.1 was not recorded tenure holder of the plot in question, therefore, he has no right to sale of the aforesaid plots.
In view of above, the writ petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed.