Dismissed

Totaram Bunkar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2019CRLW/218/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner sought directions to the Anti Corruption Bureau to register a case for unauthorized alienation of government land and its restoration, citing prima facie evidence. The High Court, considering the 38-year delay, expiration of key accused, and the AB's conclusion that no purpose would be served in registration, dismissed the petition and disposed of the st

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the Anti Corruption Bureau's conclusion that no purpose would be served in registering the case; adhered to thematter as it was of the year 1974.

Totaram Bunkar Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 218/2018

¶3

Totaram Bunkar S/o Sh. Kheru Ram, age about 54 years, Vice President, School Bachao Sanghrsh Samiti, Bhanpur Kalan, Teh. Jamwaramgarh, Delhi Road, Jaipur(Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affiars, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Headquarter, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Additional Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur First, Jaipur.

¶9

Alok Vashishtha, Ex Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur First, Jaipur.

¶10

Distirct Collector, Jaipur, Collectorate Premises, Banipark, Jaipur.

¶11

Tehsildar, Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur

¶12

Sh. Ramsahay Kankreliya, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhanpur Kalan, Teh. Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur.

¶13

Rajkumar Khandelwal, Gram Panchayat, Bhanpur Kalan, Teh. Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripunjay Sharma with Mr. Abhishek Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶17

Order

¶18

20/09/2019

¶19

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking direction with a prayer that directions be issued to respondent No.2-Anti Corruption Bureau, to register a case against the culprits, as there is prima facie case of unauthorized alienation of land of multi-

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CRLW-218/2018]

¶22

crores rupees. Further prayer is made that respondent No.2 be directed to investigate the matter properly and that the case be monitored by higher rank Officer. Further prayer is made that Government property which has been illegally transferred to Raj Kumar Khandelwal be restored to the Government.

¶23

By the Anti Corruption Bureau complaint lodged by Anand Bihari Sharma President of School Bachao Sangharsh Samiti in year 2012 was verified by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Anti Corruption Bureau has come to the conclusion that a sale deed was executed by the Principal in favour of Raj Kumar Khandelwal who was in possession of the land for Rs.2,500/- in year 1974 and at the time of registration of the sale deed, Raj Kumar Khandelwal was in possession.

¶24

It was revealed by the Anti Corruption Bureau that at the relevant time the land price was around Rs. 1,200/- per Bigha and 2 Bigha and 4 Biswa land was sold for Rs.2,500/-, thus, at the relevant time, proper sale consideration was paid by Raj Kumar Khandelwal. It was also revealed in investigation that Principal, Pradhan, Senior Clerk and teacher all have expired.

¶25

Anti Corruption Bureau has concluded that since the matter is of year 1974 and Raj Kumar Khandelwal paid Rs.2,500/- which was deposited in Government Treasury and as majority of the accused have expired, no purpose would be served in registering the case.

¶26

It was also opined by Anti Corruption Bureau that District Collector may proceed to take possession from the illegal occupant. However, Anti Corruption Bureau, concluded that no purpose would be served in registering the case with the Anti Corruption Bureau.

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CRLW-218/2018]

¶29

I have gone through the report.

¶30

After filing of the writ petition, Raj Kumar Khandelwal who had purchased the property way back in year 1974 for Rs.2,500/has also expired. The matter is of year 1974. Complaint has been filed after an inordinate delay of 38 years in 2012. Anti Corruption Bureau itself has come to the conclusion that there is no justification, now in registering the case as majority of the accused have expired.

¶31

In view of the same, no ground is made out for entertaining the present writ petition.

¶32

Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶33

Stay application stands disposed.

¶34

District Collector is free to proceed in accordance with law.

¶35

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶36

Heena/65

Totaram Bunkar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Totaram Bunkar v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Raju Singh S/O Bhanwar Singh B/C Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Jangid S/O Shri Kalyan Sahai B/C Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan

Nawab S/O Shri Hakam Khan B/C Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Geeta Devi and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Vidhyadhar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Akshay Gangani Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.