Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 529 (GUJ)

ABDURAHIM HAJI YAKUB MEDA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2014-04-16

MOHINDER PAL

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) is filed for quashing the complaint filed by opponent No.2 being Criminal Inquiry Case No.18 of 2009. 2. Opponent No.2 approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod, by way of filing complaint with the allegations that the present petitioners being owners of land bearing survey No.87/2/1, had sold 63.639 sq. mtr. of land by executing registered sale deed dated 17.03.1998. On purchase of the land in question, a construction was raised. However, later on opponent No.2 came to know that the land in question actually belongs to the State Government and was never owned by the present petitioners. Resultantly, complaint was filed. 3. On the other hand, it is the case of the present petitioners that revenue survey No.87/2/1 was originally purchased by the father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and grand-father of petitioner No.3 in the year 1926. A registered sale deed was executed and accordingly, entry No.522 was posted in the revenue record. A portion of the said land was given city survey No.7273. Out of city survey number, various plots were carved out and sold to different persons through registered sale deeds. The registered sale deed which came to be executed in favour of opponent No.2 on 17.03.1998 has been reflected in the revenue record. Copy of the registered sale deed is at Annexure-C with this petition. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Revenue Officers have certified entry No.21657 posted in favour of opponent No.2 after due verification and as contemplated under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. Finally, it has been prayed that the present complaint, being counter-blast on account of the proceedings against the brother of the complainant, is liable to be quashed. 4. While arguing before me, learned Counsel for the petitioners has laid emphasis on the point thatoriginal city survey number has been converted into city survey Nos.7218, 7262 to 7277. A certificate issued by the City Survey Superintendent, Dahod, showing that the land bearing city survey No.7273 which was purchased by opponent No.2 forms part of city survey No.7218 vide original city survey No.87/2/1, is produced at Annexure-E with this petition. A certificate issued by the City Survey Superintendent, Dahod, showing that the land bearing city survey No.7273 which was purchased by opponent No.2 forms part of city survey No.7218 vide original city survey No.87/2/1, is produced at Annexure-E with this petition. It is submitted that the present complaint is filed as some dispute is going on between the brother of the complainant and the present petitioners and for which separate proceedings are going on. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel representing opponent No.2 has submitted that the land purchased by the complainant was, in fact, belonging to the State Government and opponent No.2 along with other persons have been cheated by the present petitioners by selling the land which was not belonging to them. Finally, it has been submitted that the petition is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. As is apparent from the record, the land in question has been purchased by opponent No.2 in the year 1998 and thereafter, construction has been raised. It is surprising that no notice whatsoever has been placed on record by opponent No.2 to show that the land in question actually belongs to the State Government. The demarcation certificate issued by the revenue authorities could have been placed on record to show that the land in question was belonging to the State. It is not in dispute that the sale deed has been executed in the year 1998 and thereafter, opponent NO.2 remained silent for all these years and then all of a sudden in the year 2009, the complaint has been filed. I am fully in agreement with the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the present complaint has been filed as a counter-blast to the other criminal proceedings pending between the present petitioners and alleged brother of opponent No.2, viz. Jadgishchandra Chauhan. Otherwise also, forum to agitate the disputes between the parties is a Revenue Court and not the Criminal Courts. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed. It is allowed. The complaint, the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Inquiry Case No.18 of 2009 and subsequent proceedings initiated against the present petitioners are ordered to be quashed and set aside. If the petitioners are on bail, the bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. Rule is made absolute.