Dismissed

P.Geeta Vani v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Dec 2021CRLP/5894/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge heard an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding allegations of colluding to mutate government land and recover huge sums. The court refused bail and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; liberty granted to file regular bail application before the Magistrate.

P.Geeta Vani Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.5894 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A1 in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.177/2021 of Chillakuru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District wherein the petitioner was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 417 r/w 415, 465 r/w 464, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34, 409 r/w 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

¶4

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Chittoor District filed a complaint on 21.9.2021 stating that the petitioner working on deputation basis as DAO, Revenue Divisional Office, Gudur, A2 is working as Senior Assistant, O/o Tahsildar, Venkatagiri were kept under suspension for mutation of the lands belonging to the Director of Ports in Sy.No.94-3 measuring Ac.271.80cents of Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal in favour of 11 private individuals by creating illusory survey numbers 327-3A2-H1 to 327-3A2-H11. As per the directions of the District Collector, SPSR Nellore District vide letter dated 16.9.2021 a criminal complaint is lodged on officers involved in this case and also who did favour knowingly that the said land belongs to the Director of Ports and mutated out rightly, caused detrimental loss to the Government. Basing on the said report treating as a crime in F.I.R.No.177/2021 was registered against the petitioner and 12 others on the file of Chillakur police station, SPSR Nellore District.

¶5

¶6

The contention of the petitioner is that she never committed any offence as alleged in the report and she is an innocent and the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and the case is foisted against the petitioner at the instance of local political leaders. Even prior to the registration of the crime on 03.7.2021 itself, the petitioner has ordered to restore the name of the Director of Ports with respect to land of an extent of Ac.271.80cents of Tamminipatnam village, Chillakuru Mandal. She further averred that the computer operator Sri J.Naveen Kumar who is A14 in the crime, without any mutation proceedings fabricated the mutation proceedings dated 15.02.2021 incorporated names of 11 persons in the revenue records. Said Naveen Kumar is outsourcing computer operator has fabricated the documents and uploaded the names in the web-land. Infact, the petitioner also made a complaint to the Inspector of Gudur Circle on 09.9.2021 that letter alleged to have been addressed by the petitioner dated 12.3.2021 is forged one and requested to take necessary action.

¶7

Denying all the allegations made in the petition, Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer, Guduru Rural circle has filed his counter stating that there was some illegal transactions with respect to the subject lands as the officials have colluded and facilitated in creating third party interest of the Government land in favour of the land grabbers. As such upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, the present crime has been registered against the accused and others. Initially the land of an extent of Ac.271.80cents in Sy.No.94-3 of Thamminapatnam village, Chillakur Mandal was classified as endowment land and stood in the name of Tatkal Manager, Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy

¶8

¶9

temple. As per G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 01.7.2009, the total extent was leased out to Krishnapatnam Port company Ltd (KPIL), its head office at Visakhapatnam. As per online adangal and 1-B namoona the pattadar and enjoyer of the above said lands is Director of Ports. The land in Sy.No.327-3A of Thamminapatnam village admeasuring a total extent of Ac.669.55cents is classified as inam dry land stands registered on the name of Dhurjati Venkataramanaiah as Inamdar. Out of the said land an extent of Ac.245.00cents was surrendered under the provisions of A.P.L.R(COACH) Act, 1973. Certain lands were also alienated in favour of APIIC which was subsequently allotted to Kenata Power projects Pvt. Ltd.

¶10

During the course of investigation, it was noticed that A1 i.e. petitioner herein and A2 colluded with private persons, entered into the web-land through her biometric authentication on 19.3.2021 by uploading proceedings Rc.B169/2021 dated 15.02.2021 of Tahsildar, Chillakur, reduced the total extent of land from Ac.271.86cents to Ac.62.55cents comprised in Sy.No.94-3 of Thamminapatnam, created illusory 11 survey numbers i.e. 3273A2-H1 to 327-3A2-H11 for the land of an extent of Ac.209.25cents and shown katha numbers from 278 to 288 and mutated in favour of A3 to A13 without following due procedure and without any recommendations of the Village Revenue Officer as well as Mandal Revenue Officer, Chillakur. 6. Further, A1 i.e. petitioner herein issued registration 13(B) and 13(c) and furnished A10 and A11 through her letter dated 12.3.2021 and facilitated them to get registered the lands on their names. But the said documents were not available in the office

¶11

¶12

records. During the course of investigation, the persons on whose names the registrations of the land was done initially i.e. A3 to A13 are none other than the relatives of A16 and A17 and when A16 to A20 were arrested on different occasions, the arrested accused confessed with regard to the role of the petitioner who is the king pin for the entire episode and in fact the petitioner and A16 used to do business and as such when they got to know the disputed subject land, they approached A18 and in turn they all approached A20 who was worked as data entry operator in the office of Tahsildar and in turn they approached A14 who is at present working in the Tahsildar office as data entry operator and they all conspired together to get their names to be entered in online webland and offered rupees 1.5crores. A15 to A17 offered Rs.62lakhs to A1 through A14 and A18 as first instalment. Again A15 to A17 offered Rs.50lakhs to A1 through A14. Accepting the said offer made, A1 entered into the web-land through her biometric authentication on 19.3.2021 by uploading proceedings dated 15.02.2021 approved by A2 reduced the total extent of land from Ac.271.86cents to Ac.62.55cents. Basing on the said investigation A14 to A20 were added subsequently. There is documentary evidence of video recording showing that A15, A18 to A20 were counting the bundles of currency notes, as such there is ample proof to establish the role of the accused. In view of the series of allegations leveled against the petitioner, requested to dismiss the pre-arrest bail application filed by her.

¶13

Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Revenue Divisional officer has made a complaint on 21.9.2021 with an allegation that the

¶14

¶15

petitioner along with certain other officials who did favour to third parties by mutating the lands belonging to the Director of Ports in favour of 11 individuals of an extent of Ac.209.25cents by creating illusory survey numbers. The basis for the said incident is the proceedings issued by the 1^st respondent vide his orders dated 15.02.2021 is baseless. Infact, the petitioner has joined as Tahsildar on 10.5.2021. Earlier she worked as Tahsildar, Chillakur. While so, she was transferred to Butchireddypalem from Chillakur and she has taken charge at Butchireddypalem Mandal on 24.3.2021 and subsequently, she was reposted to Chillakur Mandal on 10.5.2021.

¶16

Learned Counsel further submitted that in fact the Revenue Divisional Officer has made a complaint on 21.9.2021, much prior to the said complaint, the petitioner by noticing certain discrepancies, proceedings were initiated on 03.7.2021 based on the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector of Chillakur and the subject lands are recorded in the discrepancy register. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court about the statement made by the petitioner on 22.7.2021 wherein she has specifically stated that she has worked as adhoc Tahsildar at Chillakur Mandal from September 2020 to 05.7.2021. The land in Sy.No.94-3 of an extent of Ac.271.80cents of Tamminapatnam village recorded in the name of the Director of Ports. One Sri J.Naveen Kumar outsourcing computer operator working at Chillakur Mandal office without any mee-seva application changed the records in respect of lands in Sy.No.94-3 of an extent of Ac.271.80cents of Tamminapatnam village recorded in the name of the Director of Ports (Industries). He himself

¶17

¶18

created other survey numbers 327-1AH1 to 327-3AH11 with 11 individual names in web land adangal. He further submitted that as per the statement given by the petitioner, the computer operator who is aware of the web-land username and password, without any mee-seva receipts and files, he himself recorded number 70 in the distribution register and by using his technical knowledge prepared first page of Tahsildar proceedings with 11 names of outsiders in respect of the land which is in the name of the Director of Ports. It is further submitted that generally the computer operator carry out corrections in web-land with the approved mutation files of Tahsildar within two days or one week and obtain Tahsildar digital key in the presence of Tahsildar and then only mutation is carried out. But in this case after 34 days the mutation was done. So in the above circumstances, the Tahsildar has never involved in the present case and the mistake committed is identified by the petitioner herself on 03.7.2021 and accordingly proceedings were issued by placing the mutation in the discrepancy register. Subsequently, she has also made a complaint through registered post to the Station House Officer, Chillakuru police station and the learned counsel further contended that in fact the petitioner herself has sent a report to the Station House Officer of Chillakuru police station by her complaint dated 23.8.2021.

¶19

Learned counsel further submits that in the entire case even according to the records clearly discloses that immediately after noticing the said discrepancy, the petitioner has passed an order on 03.7.2021 and the said mutations were set in discrepancy register that itself shows that the petitioner has not involved in the

¶20

¶21

case and while she was working as adhoc Tahsildar, the computer operator who is A14 who colluded with the 11 beneficiaries and by using the password with his technical knowledge, he did the entire crime. In view of the above, he requested that the petitioner is not involved and she will co-operate with the investigation and she would abide by any conditions passed by this court at the time of granting pre-arrest bail.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed and submitted that huge amounts are involved in this matter and investigation is not yet completed. The petitioner who is the kingpin while working as adhoc Tahsildar of Chillakur Mandal has created a document on 15.02.2021 and accordingly the subject lands were deleted from the Director of Ports name and mutated in the name of A3 to A13. The petitioner i.e. A1 with the help of A2 and A14 has entered the names of A3 to A13 in the web-land through her biometric authentication. She has reduced an extent of Ac.209.25cents from the Director of Ports and mutated the names of A3 to A13. According to the investigation it clearly disclosed that A15 to A17 has paid Rs.62lakhs to A1 through A14 and A18 as first instalment and again Rs.50lakhs were paid to A1 by A15 to A17.

¶23

He further submitted that there are documentary evidence and video recordings showing that A15, A18 to A20 are counting the bundles of currency notes as such there is ample proof to establish the role of A1.

¶24

Reply to the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the proceedings dated 07.7.2021 relied on by the petitioner is that the

¶25

¶26

document prepared by the petitioner herself subsequent to filing of the complaint by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He further submitted that though the petitioner was transferred as Tahsildar to Kaluvoy on 01.7.2021 but she has not relieved till 05.7.2021 on the pretext of „grounding mela‟ housing programme. On 04.7.2021 on the day of Sunday, A1 visited the office revoked into web-land and removed all the entries with regard to Sy.Nos.327-3A2-H1 to 327-3A2-H11, katha numbers from 278 to 288 and the same was kept in discrepancy register and later she was relieved on 05.7.2021. He further stated that huge amounts were collected and handed over to A1 by A14 & A18 and there are certain proofs with regard to payment done by A15 to A17 to the petitioner.

¶27

Reply to the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that as alleged by the petitioner that she has sent a report dated 23.8.2021 through registered post and the same was received by the Station House Officer, Chillakur police station on 27.8.2021, the petitioner has alleged in that complaint that some unknown persons forged her signature and attained right over the subjected lands by way of registration of 13(B) and 13(C) orders issued by the Tahsildar Chillakur dated 26.7.2005. Though the Station House officer, Chillakur police station entered the report of the petitioner in the station general dairy on 27.8.2021 but no documents are enclosed along with the report to proceed further in the matter. 14. On perusal of the entire record, it clearly establishes that the petitioner is the main king pin by taking huge amount from third parties and created the revenue records in favour of A3 to A13 and it is very much necessary for custodial interrogation of the

¶28

¶29

petitioner and requested to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶30

Along with this petition, A14 and A15 were also filed separate anticipatory bail applications. The counsel appearing on behalf of A14 has specifically contended that as alleged by A1, A14 who is the computer operator cannot create any record without the help of A1. He is innocent and he does not know anything. Apart from that as even assuming that the petitioner has created by obtaining the username and password of the petitioner/A1 but no one can tamper the biometric authentication unless and until the same was approved by A1. The biometric authentication cannot be tampered and without the said authentication, the entries cannot be uploaded in the web-land.

¶31

Considering the submissions made both sides and on perusal of the record, it clearly discloses that an extent of Ac.209.25cents of land which is in the name of the Director of Ports was deleted and made in favour of third parties by creating illusory survey numbers. As contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, huge amounts as well as huge Government lands are involved in this matter and as far as the allegations made by the petitioner as well as A14 it clearly discloses that the involvement of both the persons in creating third party interest in the Government lands.

¶32

In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A1 and accordingly the same is dismissed. But liberty is given to the petitioner/A1 to surrender before the Court below i.e. Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and file an

¶33

¶34

application seeking bail and the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur is directed to consider the same on merits.

¶35

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 01.12.2021 Rd

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶40

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5894 of 2021

¶41

Date: 01.12.2021

¶42

P.Geeta Vani v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Geeta Vani v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Similar cases

Saji Ahmad Vs the State of Ap

Mohammad Arif Quresh, Vs The State of andhra Pradesh

Amarjith Singh, Vs State represented by the Public Prosecutor

G.Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

VaddadiLovarajuAT Raju, Vs The State of A.P

Vadavalli Anand Kumar Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.,Pp and Another