Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 274 (UTT)

S. B. PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-07-10

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Counter affidavit, filed today in the Court on behalf of respondent no.3 in WPCRL No.700 of 2014, is accepted on record. 2. All the above-titled writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking relief of arrest stay, pursuant to the impugned first information report dated 12.06.2014 registered as case crime no.102 of 2014 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC at P.S. Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. 3. The genesis of lodgment of such report is the execution of an agreement to sale which was entered into after receiving a hefty sale consideration by one Devki @ Meenu Mahant. The property, which was the subject matter of the said agreement, is a vast agricultural land and this lady claimed ownership upon the said land on the basis of a registered will dated 5.9.1985 executed by her husband Mahant Narendra Dass. The question, whether the property was personally owned by Mahant Narendra Dass or it was the Wakf property of Gaddi Shanter Shah, was adjudicated by the Full Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court way back in the year 1966 in the case of ‘Biram Prakash and others v. Narendra Dass and others’ reported in [1966] 0 AIR (SC) 1011, whereby the same was held out to be the Wakf property, and for this reason, in the interest of Gaddi, Mahant Narendra Dass appointed a Committee of Trustees to advise him in the management of affairs of the Trust. 4. So, obviously as per the own admission of Mahant Narendra Dass, it was it was the Gaddi of Shanter Shah and all the land/property belonging to that Gaddi, was in the nature of Trust. 5. The Will, in question, as alleged by the wife of Mahant Narendra Dass, was challenged in a civil suit. Though, the suit was dismissed in the Trial Court but the First Appellate Court i.e. the Additional District Judge, Haridwar adjudicated the appeal on 9th January, 2003, who, thereby, declared the questioned Will as illegal, void and ineffective. A further direction was issued in the said judgment for sending information of the same to the Sub-Registrar at Dehradun. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Second Appeal is pending in the High Court. A further direction was issued in the said judgment for sending information of the same to the Sub-Registrar at Dehradun. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Second Appeal is pending in the High Court. But the fact remains which also cannot be lost sight of that this property is under lis and by virtue of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, it could not have been the subject matter of the sale deed. Even on 22.8.2009, Smt. Meenu Mahant, the widow of Mahant Narendra Dass, has deposed on oath in her statement before the Revenue Court that the plots of land, situated in village Shantar Shah, bearing numbers 32, 36, 450, 452, 455, 456, 457 and 1302, were belonging to Gaddi from the time immemorial i.e way back from the time of founder of this Trust Baba Bakhtal Mal, and then the said property descended from time to time to a number of Mahants in the order of succession. 7. The Court feels that Ms. Deoki @ Meenu Mahant, and after her death, her three daughters, had no legal authority to make this property as the subject matter of the sale receiving hefty consideration. 8. The argument of learned counsel that the petitioners, namely, S.B. Prasad, Mohkam Singh and Rishipal are simply the bona fide purchasers of the property, in question, is unacceptable for the reason that on an apparent look, their role also cannot be said to be beyond suspicion because such a hefty consideration has been paid by them even without execution of the sale deed and without taking the possession of the property. 9. However, so far as the petitioner Smt. Lilly Mahant @ Pooja Chhabra is concerned, who has filed a separate petition bearing WPCRL No.700 of 2014, it appears that she has not executed any agreement to sale making the subject matter of this disputed property nor has received any money in consideration thereof from anyone. In these circumstances, it is hereby directed that during the course of investigation, her arrest, pursuant to the impugned First Information Report, as stated hereinabove, shall remain stayed subject to her cooperation with the investigating agency. 10. Thus, in view of what has been stated hereinabove, the Writ Petition No.700 of 2014 filed by Smt. Lily Mahant @ Pooja Chhabra is hereby disposed of. 11. 10. Thus, in view of what has been stated hereinabove, the Writ Petition No.700 of 2014 filed by Smt. Lily Mahant @ Pooja Chhabra is hereby disposed of. 11. At the same time, the remaining four petitions viz. WPCRL No. 701/2014, 702/2014, 703/2014 and 784/2014, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed.