Suraj Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 43

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8800 of 2020

Petitioner :- Suraj Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey for the petitioners, Ms. Anjali Upadhyay for the Greater Noida and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned AGA.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 3109 of 2019 (State vs. Suraj Sharma and Others) under Section 14(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, so also the order passed by the Commissioner of Police dated 11.08.2020.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated under the Gangsters Act, provisions of which are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as petitioners are the builders and their firm is owner of Khasra No. 164 situated in Village-Shah Beri, TehsilDadri, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar which has been purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 20.07.2013, 17.10.2013 and 13.05.2015 from its original tenure-holders.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier notification was issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 10.06.2009 and declaration was issued under Section 6 read with Section 17(1)

¶9

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 09.11.2009. Both these notifications were challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 500 of 2010. After hearing parties, writ petition was allowed and both the notifications were quashed vide judgment and order dated 12.05.2011 reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 456.

¶10

Learned counsel further submits that SLP filed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority against the said order was dismissed. After dismissal of SLP, petitioners' firm purchased the land in Village-Shah Beri for construction of residential building, as the land was free from acquisition proceedings.

¶11

In this backdrop, it is submitted that action taken by the respondent authorities invoking provisions of Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act is illegal and there is no material available for objective determination of the District Magistrate to invoke provisions of the Gangsters Act, therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Greater Noida, in her turn, submits that land which has been purchased by the petitioners has been made subject matter of acquisition for which subsequent notices were issued and after issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, if petitioners have entered into a transaction, then it cannot be said that land at Village-Shah Beri is free from acquisition proceedings.

¶13

It is further submitted that in case of Krishna Pal Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others vide order dated 10.07.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6486 of 2020, it has been held that petitioners were put to show cause by the District Magistrate under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act against the proposed attachment. Petitioners appeared and filed written objection on 05.06.2015 supported with an affidavit and

¶14

thereafter attachment order was passed, therefore, petitioners cannot claim fresh opportunity under Section 15(1) of the Act.

¶15

It is also submitted that petitioner no. 2-Mahesh Chandra Sharma had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24453 of 2019 pertaining to Khasra Nos. 164, 97-A and 98 situated in Village-Shah Beri, Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar wherein it has come on record that on 29.06.2013, two notifications were issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring an area of 48.817 hectares and 109.143 hectares. Under such facts and circumstances, said writ petition has been dismissed, imposing a heavy cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs rupees).

¶16

After hearing arguments of both the parties, it is apparent that FIR does prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence showing that case of the petitioners do fall within the ambit of the provisions contained in Section 2(b)(iii) of the Act of 1986 and also in view of the orders passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24453 of 2019, this petition is not maintainable, it deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.

¶17

However, petitioner in this case has an alternative remedy of approaching the concerned District Magistrate under the provisions of Section 15(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, if so advised, they may avail such remedy .

¶18

Order Date :- 3.11.2020

¶19

Vikram/-

Suraj Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajmal Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anuj Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raghvendra Alias Dheeru and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Akash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Singh Nirwan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manju Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others