Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1577 (RAJ)

Moti Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2010-08-30

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is prayed by the petitioners that FIR No.90 dated 09.06.2010 of Police Station Rani, District Pali registered against them for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. may be quashed 3. The case of the petitioners is that so called disputed "Land Ownership Certificates" were issued by Sarpanch Bhikhi and on that basis the petitioners became owner of the property in question and thereafter, they sold the said property to other persons. The petitioners case is that if any forgery has been committed by Sarpanch while issuing the "certificate of ownership of land" then the petitioners cannot be punished and cannot be 2 prosecuted for the offence committed by Sarpanch. It is also submitted that disputed "Certificates of Ownership" were issued in "JAN SAMASYA SHIVIR" organised by the Gram Panchayat Nadol, Panchayat Samiti Rani. The petitioners filed application for granting ownership certificate and their applications were instituted at Serial No.34, 35 and 36 in the register maintained by Gram Panchayat. Therefore, no offence has been committed by the petitioners. 4. After hearing counsel for petitioners, I have perused applications Annexures-2, 3 and 4 filed by the petitioners addressed to Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nadol, in which following request has been made by the petitioners :(Annexure-2) " lsaok esa] ljiap lkfgc xzke iapk;r] ukMksy fo"k; %& Hkw LokfeRo izek.k i= nsus ckcr~A Jheku th] fuosnu iqukjke iq= d`ik th ?kkaph fu uksMksy rg0 nslwjh dk vtZ gS fd esjk ,d dCtk lqnk IyksV iqfyl pkSadh ds ihNs vk;k gqvk gS ftl ij esjk 10&15 lkyksa ls dCtk gS mDr IyksV dk eq>s Hkw&LokfeRo izek.k i= nsus dh d`ik djkosaA bfr 15-10-2002 sd/- ( iqukjke ) 5. Admittedly, identical applications were filed by all the petitioners addressed to Sarpanch, Nadol upon which the said Land Ownership Certificates were issued by the Sarpanch, Nadol. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that certificates have been issued by Smt. Bhikhi, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Nadol under her signature can be verified while sending the same to FSL report and authorship of the said documents can be ascertained by the investigating officer. The petitioners cannot be blamed for any offence. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that certificates have been issued by Smt. Bhikhi, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Nadol under her signature can be verified while sending the same to FSL report and authorship of the said documents can be ascertained by the investigating officer. The petitioners cannot be blamed for any offence. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that if any certificate is issued by Sarpanch, Nadol then the petitioners became owner of the property and they became title holder, therefore, on the basis of said ownership certificates they have sold the said land under the registered sale deed in which there is no illegality. 7. It is very strange that no such type of title certificate is defined and provided under the Panchayat Act of the Rules, so also, no title can be given by way of issuing such "Land Ownership Certificate" by Sarpanch of any Gram Panchayat but with the connivance of Sarpanch, the applications were filed by the petitioners under their signatures are those applications were considered and upon the prayer made by the petitioners, these certificates were issued by the Sarpanch, Nadol, which is totally in contravention of the Panchayat Act and the Rules because there is no provision in the Panchayat Act and Rules to issue so called "Land Ownership Certificate" to create any title in favor of petitioners. 8. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR. More so, it appears that fraud has been committed by the petitioners and Sarpanch, Nadol, therefore, it is a fit case in which thorough investigation is required to be done for prosecuting the person who has committed offence. Hence, this misc. petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******