Sushil Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2024A482/9971/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under CrPC Sec. 482 seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from a land dispute involving Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, the High Court heard arguments regarding the conduct of revenue demarcation and cognizance of the FIR. No final decision on the quashing prayer was rendered; the matter was adjourned. The order directed the presiding officer of the revenue proc

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings stayed; revenue officer directed to appear and explain demarcation procedure.

Sushil Agrawal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9971 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Sushil Agrawal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate & Sri Anurag Kishore, Advocate on behalf of the private respondent is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant application is filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.65709 of 2023 (State Vs. Sushil Kumar Agrawal & Ors.), arising out of impugned charge sheet No.01, dated 23.4.2023 filed by the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No.0028/2023, under Sections 447, 504, 506 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Madeyganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

On 26.11.2024, following order was passed:-

¶10

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

2. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶12

3. On 22.11.2024 following order was passed:-

¶13

"1. List this case on 26.11.2024 at 11:30 A.M.

¶14

2. District Magistrate, Lucknow is directed to ensure the production of complete record related to the Case No.14091 of 2022 (Rekha Kapoor & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 passed by Mr. Naveen Chandra, S.D.M., Sadar, Lucknow vide order dated 31.12.2022, before this Court.

¶15

3. In the meantime, instructions be also placed by S.H.O., Police Station - Madeyganj, Lucknow.

¶16

4. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the District Magistrate, Lucknow forthwith for necessary compliance."

¶17

4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, Sri Sharnendu Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow is present along with record of Case No.14091 of 2022, under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Rekha Kapoor vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶18

A specific question has been asked from him that as to whether the proceedings under Section 24 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 can be initiated for the core area of municipal corporation to which he categorically denied and informed that proper remedy is civil suit.

¶19

5. The record placed by the Officer reveals that one undated application along with unfilled affidavit of Rakha Kapoor, wife of late Prem Kapoor, resident of B-604, Suresh Smriti, Prathmesh Complex Meera Desai Road in front of country club, Andheri West, Mumbai,

¶20

Maharashtra was placed on 14.04.2022 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Lucknow under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of gata nos.358/1 rakba 0.0320 hectare, khasra no.360/1 rakba 0.1530 hectare, khasra no. 361/1M rakba 0.2320 hectare, Ahibaranpur, Tehsil Sadar, Lucknow.

¶21

The Sub-Divisional Officer forwarded the said application to the Revenue Inspector of the area in question for submitting his report within fifteen days whereupon notice was issued to Rekha Kapoor, w/o Prem Kapoor, Vishal Kapoor and Akshay Kapoor, s/o late Prem Kapoor, r/o B-604, Suresh Smriti, Prathmesh Complex Meera Desai Road in front of country club, Andheri West, Mumbai. In pursuance of the same, the Revenue Inspector forwarded the report of spot inspection dated 27.06.2022 mentioning that the applicant of the said application as well as other responsible persons were present on the spot. The report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar on 28.06.2022 with the conclusion that there is no sub division in the revenue map as the alleged gatas are situated in the dense core urban area, therefore, the demarcation proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are not feasible.

¶22

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that ignoring the said report, again only formal notice was issued to the applicants and thereafter inspection report dated 04.07.2022 was obtained by the Revenue Officer and conducted demarcation through ETS machine. It is vehemently submitted that a report dated 22.11.2022 was prepared by Mr. Shree Kant, Revenue Inspector, which was forwarded to Tehsildar with the observation that the said area is situated in the dense core population, and therefore, change of possession is not possible, even then, the final order was passed on 31.12.2022 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sri Naveen Chandra, Sadar, Lucknow by confirming the report dated 22.11.2022. Despite the aforesaid report of the Revenue Inspector dated 22.11.2022, possession was also taken by the Sub Divsional Officer and handed over to the private respondent, who immediately fixed the iron gate and raised boundary wall.

¶23

7. Further submission of learned counsel for applicant is that the property in question was recorded as nazul land. He has also submitted that gata nos.198/199 were recorded as nazul land and after freehold, it was purchased by one Sumer Chand Jain, who sold out the aforesaid plot having area 8970 sq ft to the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants were in possession over the property in question, which was taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as other police officials under the garb of aforesaid order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code. 8. He has next submitted that admittedly private respondent was the recorded tenure holder of gata no.358/1 area 5 biswansi (0.0032 hectare) but due to collusion with the revenue authorities in the revenue record, area was changed and the same has been mentioned as 0.032 hectare in place of 0.0032 hectare. It was also reported that the revenue authorities conducted the inquiry and the Naib Tehsildar, Kakori, Lucknow submitted the report dated 23.04.2024, which is annexed at page 33 of the supplementary affidavit filed today and thereafter with the association of police authorities excess possession was taken by the private respondent and thereafter the FIR in question was lodged. It is vehemently submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner and, therefore kind indulgence of this Court is necessary. 9. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that in the real time khatauni, area of plot no. 358/1 is mentioned as 0.032 hectare.

¶24

10. The record placed by the Naib Tehsildar be kept in sealed cover.

¶25

11. List this case on 04.12.2024.

¶26

12. On the next date Sri Naveen Chandra, then Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Lucknow shall appear before this Court and explain as to under what circumstances, he concluded the proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶27

13. Until further order of this Court, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

¶28

13. On the next date, the revenue record related to all disputed gatas be placed before this Court from the date of basic year upto the current date.

¶29

In pursuance of aforesaid order, Mr. Naveen Chandra, the then S.D.M., Sadar, Lucknow is present and he conceded this fact that no notice was issued to other recorded tenure holder adjoining to the boundary of the property in question and the report was sought from the Revenue Inspector. On the basis of report dated 28.6.2022 forwarded by Revenue Inspector, Mohibullapur, Lucknow, demarcation was not done but the record reveals that without giving any information to other recorded tenure holders of the adjoining property, demarcation through E.T.S. machine was conducted ignoring the aforesaid report of Revenue Inspector, thereafter, Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow also submitted a report dated 17.11.2022 with the observation that 'Kabza Parivartan' is not feasible. Thereafter, on the basis of report of Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow, dated 17.11.2022, order dated 31.12.2022 was passed.

¶30

It is evident from the record that certain photographs were annexed with the present application, in which, police officials like Ms. Manisha Singh, A.D.C.P., Lucknow, Ms. Neha Tripathi, A.C.P., Mr. Sunil Azad, S.H.O., Madeyganj, Lucknow are present on 31.3.2023.

¶31

Two weeks time is granted to learned counsel for the private respondent to file counter affidavit.

¶32

List this case on 19.12.2024 at 11:30 A.M.

¶33

Interim order, granted earlier, shall continue till the next date of listing.

¶34

Registry is directed to show the name of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate & Sri Anurag Kishore, Advocate as counsel for the private respondent in the cause list.

¶35

Original record related to the Case No.14091/2022 is returned to Mr. Shardendu Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow.

¶36

Officer present today, need not to appear until further order.

¶37

Applicant as well as private respondent or her authorized shall appear before this Court.

¶38

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Gaurav/-

¶39

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sushil Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shankar Sharma vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Raman Sahni vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Shankar Sharma Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amresh Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others