Dismissed

Narendra Madanrao Zambre v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2017WP/820/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bom. HC dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and impugned order under Section 156(3) CrPC in a land dispute. The Court held the FIR was not a fit case for quashing despite jurisdictional defects in the revenue record creation due to ongoing civil title litigation.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; order of Magistrate not set aside; companion application allowing document production allowed.

Narendra Madanrao Zambre Vs the State of Mah… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 ) crwp820.08

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 820 OF 2008 WITH

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3996 OF 2017

¶5

Dr. Narendra s/o. Madanrao Zambre,..Petitioner
Age. 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Baramati, Tq. Baramati,
Dist. Pune.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents

¶8

Through Police Station, Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶9

2. Subhash s/o. Bhagwatrao Salunke,

¶10

Age. 51 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Kati, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶11

Mr.V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State.
Mr.S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE &

¶13

S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :06.09.2017

¶14

J U D G M E N T [PER : T.V. NALAWADE,J.] :-

¶15

1.This petition is filed for the relief of

¶16

quashing of F.I.R. in M.Case No.14 of 2008 dated

¶17

13.04.2008, registered with Tuljapur Police Station,

¶18

Dist. Osmanabad. The crime is registered on the basis of
directions given by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Tuljapur, under section 156(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in Misc. Proceeding No.89 of 2008.
The private complaint was filed for offences punishable
under section 166, 167, 420, 466, 468, 469, 471 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In Criminal
Application No.3996 of 2017, filed in this Court, the
permission is sought by the original complainant to
produce some documents, which are in relation to the
dispute between the original complainant and one of the
accused persons. Both the sides are heard.

¶19

2.It is the case of the complainant that on
27.01.1992 under registered sale-deed, he purchased land
admeasuring 7 H 86 R from Gat No.858 situated at village
Kati from Yojanadevi Deshmukh. In the past Yojanadevi

¶20

was owner of Survey No.322 admeasuring 11 H 34 R. Under
sale deed dated 27.04.1982 accused No.5-Amarsinha
Nimbalkar had purchased 10 Acres 16 Gunthas land from

¶21

Yojanadevi for consideration of Rs.17,000/-. After the
transaction with Nimbalkar, Survey No.322 was divided
into pot-hissa and Survey No.322/1 was the number given
to the portion purchased by Nimbalkar. To the remaining
portion, Survey No.322/2 was given and that remained with
Yojanadevi. Its size was 7 H 14 R.

¶22

3.After purchasing the aforesaid portion by

¶23

Nimbalkar, consolidation scheme was implemented in the
village. The land purchased by Nimbalkar was given Gat
No.859.

¶24

4.Land Survey No.322/2, which was with Yojanadevi
and other land Survey No.323 having area of 72 R were
consolidated and to this consolidated portion Gat No.858
was given in or about year 1987-88. Thus, in the year
1992 when the complainant purchased land from Yojanadevi,
she was owner of land Gat No.858.

¶25

5.Regular Civil Suit No.204 of 2000 was filed in

¶26

the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur by

¶27

the complainant - Subhash Salunke for removal of

¶28

encroachment allegedly made by Nimbalkar on land Gat
No.858. When this suit was pending, Nimbalkar made

¶29

application to the Dy. Director of Land Record,
Aurangabad on 02.07.2003. He contended that he had
purchased land admeasuring 10 Acres 16 Gunthas under

¶30

sale-deed of 1982. He contended that at the time of
implementation of consolidation scheme, the measurements

¶31

were not taken as per the actual possession. He
contended that as the measurement was not made as per

¶32

actual possession, wrong map of new lands bearing Gat

¶33

numbers was created. He admitted that in the year 1993,
there was measurement made on the basis of sale-deed

¶34

executed in favour of complainant and he contended that

¶35

at that time wrong report was prepared and it was wrongly
shown that he had made encroachment. He had prayed in the

¶36

application to show the portion, which was in his
possession from land Gat No.858 as a part and parcel of

¶37

Gat No.859 and show area of land Gat No.858 as 5 H 6 R in

¶38

place of 4 H 20 R.

¶39

6.It appears that the matter was referred to the
T.I.L.R., present petitioner and he was expected to take
measurements and give the report. It is contention of
the petitioner that he had given notice to the
complainant and he had considered objections taken by
him, which were of aforesaid nature and he had then given
report to the Superintendent of Land Record. It appears
that, the Superintendent of Land Record in communication
dated 24.03.2004 informed that the area was corrected.
After that private complaint came to be filed.

¶40

7.In the private complaint, there are allegations

¶41

that false report of enquiry was created by the present
petitioner - T.I.L.R. and when the application was given
to include encroached portion in Gat No.859, statement
was recorded to show that accused Nimbalkar was owner of
86 R portion of Gat No.858 and accordingly the record was
created. It is contention of the complainant that when

¶42

there is implementation of provisions of the Bombay

¶43

Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings

¶44

Act, change in the record and the map cannot be made
unless there is permission of the Divisional Commissioner

¶45

or the Collector. It is contended that, present

¶46

petitioner joined hands with Nimbalkar and due to that
aforesaid revenue record came to be created.

¶47

8.Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed

¶48

reliance on the provisions of The Judges (Protection)

¶49

Act, 1985 and some reported cases of this Court and the
Supreme Court. The cases are as under :-

¶50

(1)Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr., 2013
AIR SCW 5570.

¶51

(2)Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 287.
(3)State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR (SC)
604.

¶52

(4)Vineet Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr.,
2017 SCC OnLine SC 316.

¶53

(5)Debashish Chakrabarty & Anr.Vs.The State of
Maharashtra, Cr.WP No.4765 of 2014 & other
companion matters dated 09.10.2015 of Bombay High
Court.

¶54

(6)Narendra Madan Zambre & ors. Vs. State & ors.,

¶55

2006(1) Mh.L.R.54.

¶56

(7)Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Arn., 2009(3)Mh.L.J.225.

¶57

(8)JIK Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sunil Ranchorlal

¶58

Bajaj & Anr., 200((3)Mh.L.J.228.

¶59

(9)Shivkaran s/o. Ganpatrao Bharti & Anr. Vs. The
State of Maharashtra & Anr., Cr.WP No.138 dated
20.06.2009 of Bombay High Court.

¶60

(10) Dadarao s/o. Dhondiram Borade & Ors.
Vs.Damodhar s/o. Bhika Madan & Anr., Cr.WP No.640
of 2007 dated 23.03.2011 of Bombay High Court.

¶61

(11) Venkat s/o. Limbaji Koli Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr., Cr.Application Nos.4924 of 2010
& 4925 of 2010 dated 13.04.2011 of Bombay High
Court.

¶62

(12)Smt. Shobha w/o. Vidyasagar Jadhav Vs. The
State of Maharashtra & Ors., Cr.Application No.3175
of 2006 dated 25.04.2014 of Bombay High Court.

¶63

9.The contention of the present petitioner that he

¶64

needs to be treated as a Judge as defined in aforesaid

¶65

The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 cannot be accepted.

¶66

Even under Land Revenue Code, the T.I.L.R. has no power

¶67

to take decision and he works only as a Surveyor, the
officer who takes measurement. The T.I.L.R. has no power

¶68

to change revenue record or make a proposal to change the

¶69

revenue record. The act of measurement and even orders

¶70

passed in regular proceedings filed for correction under

¶71

section 31 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act, cannot confer title, if
prior to consolidation, there was no title in the land.

¶72

In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that

¶73

the petitioner has protection of the aforesaid The Judges
(Protection) Act. On the basis of the allegations and
the record created, it can be said that there was no
jurisdiction to the petitioner to create the record of
aforesaid nature.

¶74

10.The record produced includes copies of sale-

¶75

deeds executed by the original owner in favour of
Nimbalkar in the year 1982 and in favour of Salunke in
the year 1992. The sale-deeds show that in the year
1982, the land of Yojanadevi was having Survey No.322 and

¶76

total area owned by her was 11 H 34 R (approx. 28 Acres 1
Guntha). The sale-deed of 1982 shows that out of this

¶77

portion, land admeasuring 10 Acres 16 gunthas, which was
western portion of land Survey No.322 was purchased by
Nimbalkar. The record of consolidation like forms show

¶78

that as per old record, Falni (division) of Survey was

¶79

done on the basis of sale-deed executed in favour of

¶80

Nimbalkar and the portion purchased by him was given

¶81

Survey No.322/1. Though area purchased was 10 Acres 16

¶82

Gunthas, the area of Survey No.322/1 was shown as 4 H 20
R and 4 R portion was shown more. Yojanadevi was shown
as owner of Survey No.322/2 having area 7 H 14 R.

¶83

11.The sale-deed executed in the year 1992 in
favour of complainant – Salunke shows that Yojanadevi was

¶84

shown as owner of Gat No.858. The consolidation form
shows that Gat No.858 was formed by combining Survey
No.322/2 and Survey No.323. Survey No.323 admeasuring 72
R was also owned by Yojanadevi. After combining these
two survey numbers, land was given new number as land Gat
No.858 having area 7.86 H. In the sale-deed of 1992 land
Gat No.858 in entirety was sold to Salunke and the area
sold was shown as 7 H 73 R (additional 13 R as pot-kharab
– barren land). Thus, in the year 1992, Yojanadevi was
owner of entire portion of Gat No.858 and this portion
was sold to complainant – Salunke. On the basis of sale-

¶85

deed, mutation was made and only Salunke was shown as

¶86

owner of land Gat No.858. Prior to that only Yojanadevi

¶87

was shown as owner of entire portion of land Gat No.858.

¶88

12.The aforesaid circumstances show that when the
scheme of consolidation was implemented, Nimbalkar had
not raised any grievance when he was shown as owner of
land land Gat No.859 having area 4H 20 R. Yojanadevi was
shown as owner of entire portion of Gat No.858.
Nimbalkar was having an area purchased by him under sale-
deed of 1982 and in Gat No.859 he was having more area of
4 R portion. In view of these circumstances and as
Nimbalkar is in possession of some portion of land Gat
No.858, suit for removal of encroachment is filed against
him by Salunke. When the suit is filed for removal of
encroachment, issue of title is always involved. So it

¶89

was open for Nimbalkar to show that he was owner of the
portion of land Gat No.858. On the basis of aforesaid
record, for the purpose of present proceeding, it can be
said that it was not possible for Nimbalkar to protect
possession of portion encroached by him in Gat No.858.
This record also shows that there was no mistake at all

¶90

committed during implementation of consolidation scheme
as entire area which was purchased by Nimbalkar was given
Survey No.322/1 on the basis of sale-deed and to this
portion new number was given in consolidation of land as

¶91

Gat No.859. There was no mistake like mistake in

¶92

arithmetic calculation etc. Further Nimbalkar himself had
contended in the application that only because he was in
possession of some portion from land Gat No.858, he ought

¶93

to have been shown as owner of that portion also. He was

¶94

asking to divide land Gat No.858 and include the portion

¶95

of that land Gat number, which was in his possession in
Gat No.859. That kind of correction was not at all

¶96

possible under section 31 of the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act.

¶97

Further, the contention of Nimbalkar that he was in

¶98

possession and so his name needs to be entered as owner
could not have been considered by the T.I.L.R. or the

¶99

Superintendent of Land Record. There is separate
authority created like Tahsildar and then there are

¶100

Appellate Authorities above the Tahsildar. Thus, the

¶101

T.I.L.R. and even the Superintendent of Land Record had

¶102

no jurisdiction to entertain this dispute. Further, the
dispute over the title of aforesaid nature was pending
before the Civil Court and this circumstance was brought
to the notice of the T.I.L.R. Inspite of all these
things, the T.I.L.R. petitioner prepared a report in
favour of Nimbalkar and accordingly revenue entry came to

¶103

be made in favour of Nimbalkar and he is shown as owner
of 86 R portion from Gat No.858. It can be said that
this record will not come in the way of Civil Court, as
this record cannot confer title on Nimbalkar, but that
way the mischief committed by Nimbalkar and the present

¶104

petitioner cannot be ignored. Due to these
circumstances, it is not possible to accept the
contention made by the petitioner that Salunke ought to
have challenged the order made by the Superintendent,
Land Record of aforesaid nature and the Criminal Court

¶105

ought not to have given direction to make investigation.

¶106

13.The submissions made by learned Counsel for the

¶107

petitioner and the case reported at 2006(1) Mh.L.R.54
(Narendra Madan Zambre & ors. Vs. State & ors.) show that

¶108

in the past also there were allegations made against
petitioner Zambre of creation of false record. He
succeeded in that proceeding as this Court quashed the
F.I.R. In that case the facts were also somewhat
different. The relevant facts of the present matter are

¶109

already quoted and they show that the things are done

¶110

with mala fide intention and even when there was no
jurisdiction, the things are done. It cannot be said
that the allegations made, do not make out the offences
mentioned in the private complaint – F.I.R. It cannot be

¶111

said that criminal proceeding is started maliciously by
Salunke. Such instances are increasing day by day and

¶112

the persons like present petitioner are causing damage to
the entire system due to such conduct. This Court holds

¶113

that it is not a fit case to quash the F.I.R. and set

¶114

aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

¶115

14.Present matter is of year 2008 and so the

¶116

procedure which was applicable at the relevant time was
followed by the learned J.M.F.C. The contentions with
regard to necessity of sanction under section 197 of
Cr.P.C. etc. cannot be considered in this case. Further,

¶117

due to nature of offence and mala fides discussed,
otherwise also these contentions could not have helped
the petitioner. So, the observations made in cases cited
supra are of no help to the petitioner.

¶118

15.In the result, Criminal Writ Petition No.820 of
2008 stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Interim
relief stands vacated.

¶119

16.Criminal Application No.3996 of 2017 filed for

¶120

permission to produce documents is allowed. These
documents are considered by this Court.

¶121

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [T.V.NALAWADE,J.]

¶122

snk/2017/AUG17/ crwp820.08

Narendra Madanrao Zambre v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Madanrao Zambre v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Prakash Sampat Shejwal and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bhagirath Mahadeo Bhosale and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gangadhar Andappa Ghatte and Anr.

Chandrashekhar Govind Behere and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Chandrashekar Govind Bhere Vs the State of Mah

Shadeo Daulatrao Kashid Vs State of Maha and Anr.