JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an application under sections 397 and 401 read with section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure praying for quashing of criminal proceeding being Case: no. C-J 2035 of 1978 now pending before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, Burdwan. 2. THE facts relevant for the present purpose may briefly be stated as follows: there is' a plot of land bearing Das no. 2047 appertaining to Khatian No. 621 of Mouza Narsinghbad having a total area of 93 decimals of land. The settlement records show that the nature of the land is agricultural. Out of the total area, 36 decimals were sold to one jagatpati Sinha who, since the purchase, has been cultivating the land as a paddy land. Out of the 36 decimals Jagatpati Sinha transferred 19 decimals to the present petitioners. The petitioner sold 8 decimals to one Tarulata Sharma on 13.8.76. Thereafter, Tarulata Sharma, while in possession of the land, gave notice to the competent authority under the, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, for transfer of the land, that was in September, 1977 and getting that notice the authorities felt that; some enquiry should be made as to how the petitioner could transfer the land to tarulata Sharma without prior notice a proceeding was started and eventually a complaint was fried. The petitioner's case all through has been that the land was agricultural and as such it was not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to notify the competent authority of the intended sale nor was it necessary to take permission before sale. It is not disputed before us that such permission is necessary only if the land is a vacant land within the meaning of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The petitioner having disputed that it was a vacant land, there was a direction to: enquiry as to the nature of the land and such enquiry was held by the Kanungo. The Kanungo's report dated 16.12.77 (Annexure 'f') reads as follows "i enquired the land personally on 15.12.77, A portion of the total land comprises in R. S. Plot 2047 have been transferred to others which is out of cultivation for the present year. The rest of the land owned by the transferor himself is used as paddy land. The class of land as in r. O. R. is 'bahal' i.e. agricultural. The rest of the land owned by the transferor himself is used as paddy land. The class of land as in r. O. R. is 'bahal' i.e. agricultural. Hence the class of land may be treated as agricultural land. " Even after such a report having been made on spot enquiry; the competent authority directed the complaint to be filed upon a reference to instructions dated 19.12.1977 of the Ministry of Works and Housing, New Delhi, and held that since the accused petitioner had not fulfilled, the conditions laid down in the said instructions before the sale of the 8 decimals of land on 13. 8. 1976, she was liable to be prosecuted. 3. THE petitioner moved an application before the learned Sub-divisional judicial Magistrate before whom the complaint was lodged contending that the proceeding was malafide and not maintainable. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 18.9.1979 rejected the prayer and hence the present application. 4. FROM the facts stated above, the position clearly shows that the petitioner purchased 19 decimals of land of the disputed plot and sold 8 decimals out of that to one Tarulata Sharma on 13.8.1976 before this transfer she had not obtained any permission. The contention of the petitioner is that the nature of the land being agricultural, no permission was necessary and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act had no application to the case. That the land is an agricultural land has been well-established by the report of the Kanungo who held an enquiry on the spot under instructions of the competent authority. After that there was hardly any scope for filing any complaint in the instant case for violation of the provisions contained section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. From annexure 'd' to the petition it appears that the competent authority lodge the complaint not because any provision of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was violated but for violation of some administrative instructions issued some time in the year 1977 by the ministry of Works and Housing Department, New Delhi. The instructions, it appears, upon a reference to Annexure 'd', required that whenever the agricultural land is proposed to be used for any other purpose prior intimation should be given to the competent authority concerned. The instructions, it appears, upon a reference to Annexure 'd', required that whenever the agricultural land is proposed to be used for any other purpose prior intimation should be given to the competent authority concerned. In the instant case, the complaint against the petitioner is not that he has violated the instructions but the positive allegation is non-compliance with the provisions of section 26 (1) of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation act. As a matter of fact, there could be no question of the petitioner complying with the instructions for two reasons. Firstly, there is nothing to indicate that she had converted the agricultural land to another purpose and secondly, the instructions were issued after the sale by the petitioner to Tarulata Sharma. It will appear from the petition that, according to the report of the Kanungo held in December 1977, the portion sold was; found to be out of cultivation during that year while the remaining portion, belonging to the petitioner was under cultivation as agricultural land. Therefore, there is nothing appearing on the; face of the record to indicate Conversion of the land by the petitioner so as to bring her within the mischief of the instructions referred to in Annexure 'd'. 5. CONSEQUENTLY in any view of the matter, we feel that the prosecution is incompetent and not maintainable. Accordingly, the proceeding is quashed and the Rule is made absolute. Let the records be sent down as soon as possible. Rule made absolute