Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2108 (RAJ)

Dhanna Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-10

NISHA GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - These revision petitions have been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No. 78/2000 of Police Station C.P.S. Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Lodge against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for Short the PC Act") and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/120- B I.P.C. Since in all these revision petitions common question is involved, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The short facts of the case are, impugned F.I.R. was lodged with the allegations that according to the preliminary enquiry, 51 Sandstone quarry licenses have been issued to the petitioners. At the relevant time, petitioner Fateh Karan was the Mining Engineer and petitioner Dhanna Lal was holding the post of Lower Division Clerk at Bijoliya District Bhilwara. Along with the application for issuing of quarry License, No Objection Certificates (consent letter) were also filed which should have been registered and on account of non-registration of consent letter, revenue loss has been caused to the State of Government and, as the same time, it has also been alleged in the F.I.R. that excess land in the tune of 73 bighas and 15 biswas have not been surrendered and as such, a material loss has been caused to the State Government. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The main contentions of the present petitioners are that the impugned F.I.R. is gross abuse of process of law. The sanction for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been refused by the competent authority and hence no proceedings could be initiated for the offence under Section 13 of the PC Act. It has been further submitted that undertaking has been taken from the petitioners that if the said document is found to be registrable, the same shall be got registered after payment of necessary duty, therefore, the interest of the Government has been secured. There is no provisions in any of the connected law and Sandstone policy to surrender the excess land. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that there is no legal requirement to file no Objection Certificate and he has taken me to Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956, which reads as follows : "89. There is no provisions in any of the connected law and Sandstone policy to surrender the excess land. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that there is no legal requirement to file no Objection Certificate and he has taken me to Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956, which reads as follows : "89. Right of Minerals, mines quarries and fisheries.-The right to all minerals, mines and quarries and to all fisheries, navigation and irrigation in and from, a river shall vest in the State Government shall have all powers necessary for the enjoyment of such a right. (2) The right to all mines and quarries includes the right of access to land for the purpose of mining and quarrying and the right to occupy such other land as may be necessary for purpose subsidiary thereto, including the erection of offices, women's dwelling and machinery, the staking of minerals and deposit of refuse, the construction of roads, railways or tram lines, and any other purpose which the State Government may declare to be subsidiary to mining and quarrying. (3) If the State Government has assigned to any person its right over any minerals, mines or quarries, and if for the proper enjoyment of such right, it is necessary that all or any of the powers specified in sub- sections (1) and (2) should be exercised by such person, the Collector may, by an order in writing, subject to such conditions and reservations as he may prescribe, delegate such powers to the person to whom the right has been assigned : Provided that no such delegation shall be made until notice has been duly served on all persons having rights in the land effected and their objection have been heard and considered. (4) If, in the exercise of the right herein referred to over any land, the rights of any persons are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, the State Government or its assignee shall pay to such persons compensation for such infringement and the amount of such compensation shall be calculated by the Collector, or, if his award is not accepted, by the civil Court, as nearly as may be in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act XXIV of 1953). 4V (5) No assignee of the State Government shall enter on or occupy the surface of any land without the previous sanction of the Collector, unless the compensation has been determined and tendered to the person whose rights are infringed. (6) If any assignee of the State Government fails to pay compensation as provided in sub-section (4), the Collector may recover such compensation from him on behalf of the person entitled to it, as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts or removes minerals from any mine or quarry, the right to which vests in and has not been assigned by the State Government, shall without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against his liable, on the order in writing of the Collector to pay a penalty not exceeding a sum calculated at the rate of fifty rupees per ton, or a fraction thereof, of the minerals so extracted or removed : Provided that if the sum so calculated is less than one thousand rupees, the penalty may be such larger sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as the Collector may impose. Explanation - In this section, minerals include any sand or clay which the State Government may declare to have a commercial value or to be required for any public purpose." 5. A bare perusal of above goes to show that right of all minerals, mines, quarries, fisheries including right of access to land is vested in the State Government and hence the learned counsel for the petitioners have rightly pointed out that there is no need to have a No Objection Certificate. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that to cut short the procedure prescribed under Section 89(3), instead of giving notice, No Objection Certificate has been obtained by the present petitioners-quarry license holders. In the letter dated 9.4.2003 of the State Government, it has been specifically stated that quarry license issued under rule 26(1) of M.C.R. 1986 and consent letter given in their support does not require any registration or stamp duty. 7. In the letter dated 9.4.2003 of the State Government, it has been specifically stated that quarry license issued under rule 26(1) of M.C.R. 1986 and consent letter given in their support does not require any registration or stamp duty. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., RLW 2005 (1) RJ 358 , wherein it has been specifically held that where the petitioner had khatedari right in the land in dispute and had not agreed to transfer his khatedari right in favour of plaintiff by the impugned documents and the executant's had merely given a No Objection Certificate, such documents are neither deed of transfer nor of assignment and such documents need not to be compulsorily registered and it has been further held by the Court that there is no need to obtain no objection certificate from the khatedar before getting mining lease for the land in dispute. 8. Hence, looking at the above legal position, when no objection certificates are not required to be compulsorily registered and no stamp duty is chargeable for the above documents, the very purpose of F.I.R. is diluted, coupled with the fact that the sanction has already been refused for the offence under Section 13 of the PC Act. For the sake of argument, if it can be taken that the document is required to be registered and it has been accepted without registration, the same cannot be treated to be amounting to an offence and hence no case is made out against any of the present petitioners. 9. The other basis of the F.I.R. is that excess land has not been surrendered by the quarry license holders and hence loss has been caused to the public exchequer. The learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically submitted that there is no provision to surrender the excess land before having the quarry license. The learned counsel has placed before the Court the Sand Stone Policy which has been formulated by the State Government under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Area under quarry license has been defined under rule 25 of the said Act. 10. The learned PP has submitted a factual report of the investigation. The learned counsel has placed before the Court the Sand Stone Policy which has been formulated by the State Government under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Area under quarry license has been defined under rule 25 of the said Act. 10. The learned PP has submitted a factual report of the investigation. Looking at the above factual report, no specific provision has been referred in the factual report by which it was obligatory duty of the present petitioners to surrender the excess land. The learned PP has also could not point out any provision which requires compulsory surrender of the excess land. Hence this basis of the impugned F.I.R. is also not sustainable. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that now the investigation is going against the 'present petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 468 I.P.C., which is gross abuse of process of law. 12. A bare perusal of F.I.R. goes to show that no allegation of the preparation of any false document has been levelled against the present petitioners. The documents which have been filed along with application are not termed as false documents and when the documents are not false, no offence of forgery could be made out. There is no allegation that any of the present petitioners tried to deceive any body or had made a misrepresentation to any body and hence no case is made out under Section 467 or 468, 471A or 420, I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929 . 13. Hence looking at the above, continuance of impugned F.I.R. is a gross abuse of process of law, hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the above, all these misc. petitions are allowed and the impugned F.I.R. No. 78/2000 of Police Station C.P.S., Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur is hereby quashed and set aside.Petitions allowed. *******