JUDGMENT Amitava Lala and Shiv Shanker, JJ.
1. All the writ petitions, as numbered above, are taken by this Court as bunch cases to hear out and decide by common order.
2. Upon hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have come to know that the dispute is with regard to notification issued by the Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred as K.D.A.) for acquiring the land of the petitioners following the notifications originally issued by the State under Section 117 of the U.P. Jamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950. According to them, by the notification of the State, the lands can be acquired to be given to Gaon Sabhas and local authorities. According to the petitioners, they are either tenure holders or purchasers from the tenure holders, therefore, the acquisition, if any, by K.D.A. cannot be made in respect of such land holders in view of exception under the Act.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the K.D.A. contended before this Court that according to the respondents K.D.A., the lands were taken by Gaon Sabha from the State are given to K.D.A.. However, K.D.A. alleged that by virtue of appropriate notification dated 6.9.1978 the land of 85 villages (list of the villages annexed along with counter affidavit) was vested in KDA. Again by notification dated 6.9.1986 Gaon Sabha land of 227 villages were notified to have been vested to K.D.A.. Large scale of complaints regarding encroachment upon the public land has been made. Joint survey was conducted. Ultimately it revealed that in addition to encroachment some of the persons sold the land acquired by K.D.A. claiming thereto as transferred land. Therefore, the F.I.R. has been lodged against such persons including petitioners in different case crime numbers under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. in the appropriate police stations of District Kanpur Nagar. All the petitioners are similarly placed but their grievances, are little different factually. Civil suit has been initiated for declaration and demarcation of the land in question at least in our case. It has also been contended by one that transfer has been caused by his/her predecessors. Under such circumstances, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the F.I.R. should be quashed being unsustainable in nature, basically in view of case of (State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.).
4. We have carefully gone through the guidelines as given in the aforesaid case reference. According to us, so long on the notification exists the F.I.R., if any, as allegedly lodged by the K.D.A will exist. We cannot put the curt before the horse by saying that F.I.R. will be quashed but notification will exist. We have no jurisdiction to determine their right in criminal writ jurisdiction. It has to be declared by civil court or by a court having civil writ jurisdiction. It is well known that civil court's judgement and order will have binding upon the criminal court. If the petitioners succeed therein automatically the face value of the F.I.R. will evaporate otherwise the F.I.R. will exist.
5. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to say that the F.I.R. will be quashed. But since we find that the dispute appears to be quasi civil in nature following order can be passed:
6. Investigation of Case Crime No. 813 of 2005, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar will be concluded within a period of three months from the date, on which a certified copy of this order is presented before him. The petitioner/s is/are directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in all possible manner. If the Investigating Officer or informant found himself aggrieved due to falsification, misstatement, fraud, non-cooperation with the Investigating Officer or any other reasons whatsoever relevant for the purpose, they are at liberty to apply for recalling/variation/vacating/modification of the order.
7. However, the petitioner/s will not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime number till the submission of chargesheet/final report, if any.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
9. However, no order is passed as to costs.