Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Chand Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2587
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24453 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahesh Chand Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed by Mahesh Chand Sharma son of late Khem Chand, resident of village Dunda Heda, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to quash the first information report dated 14.8.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 858 of 2019, under Sections 188, 288, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 26 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amendment, 1997), Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of the Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, at the Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budha Nagar.
The averments in the criminal writ petition are that the petitioner herein is a partner in the firm namely M/s Suraj Associates having its registered Office at Khasra No. 267/2, Sain Vihar Colony, NH-24, bypass road, Ghaziabad. The said firm is duly registered in the office of Commercial Taxes, Government of Uttar Pradesh and Central Sales Tax Department. The registration certificate of the partnership firm dated 6.1.2011 has been appended as Annexure-'3' to the writ petition.
As per the averments in the writ petition, the aforesaid partnership firm had purchased the lands comprising of Khasra Nos. 164, 97A and 98, having total area of 266.45 sq. yards situated in village Shahberi, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar from the recorded tenure holders vide registered sale deed dated 20.7.2013 for residential purpose. One of the sale deed is appended as Annexure '4' to the writ petition.
It is contended that after the said purchase, the name of the firm had been recorded in the revenue records. Copy of 'Khatauni' has been appended as Annexure '5' to the writ petition.
It is then contended that the State Government had issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 10.6.2009 and 9.11.2009 for planned industrial development through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, which included the plots in question (no. of which has been given above). The said notifications had been challenged in Writ Petition No. 500 of 2010 (Devendra Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.5.2011 reported in 2011(6) ADJ 456 (DB).
The decision of this Court has been affirmed by the Apex Court with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16366 of 2011, decided on 6th July, 2011.
It is, thus, submitted in paragraph '14' of the writ petition that all acquisition proceedings relating to the Village Shahberi had come to an end in the year 2011 and the said village had been de-notified in view of the decision of this Court and the Apex Court.
It is then contended that in paragraph '15' of the writ petition that after the village was de-notified, the petitioner as well as other persons started developing the lands purchased by them after preparation of a layout plan. A request was made from the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to sanction the map but they had refused saying that since acquisition was quashed, they had no concern with the land in question. As there is no other competent authority to sanction the map, the petitioners started developing the land in question.
With these averments, it is stated that the allegations in the first information report regarding unauthorized occupation and change of nature of the lands in question on the part of the petitioner are false. The petitioner being a partner of the registered firm has falsely been implicated for the offences under Sections 188, 288, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Section 26 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amendment, 1997), Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of the Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 at Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budha Nagar Considering the said submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, by means of the order dated 5.12.2019, time was granted to Sri Uma Nath Pandey learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the copies of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as also the orders of the High Court and the Apex Court in relation to the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the lands in question.
By means of the supplementary affidavit filed today, sworn by the petitioner namely Mahesh Chand Sharma son of late Khem Chandra, the notifications dated 10.6.2009 and 9.11.2009 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as also the decision of the High Court dated 12.5.2011 and the Apex Court dated 6.7.2011 have been brought on record to assert that as on date no proceeding for acquisition of the lands in question is going on.
In rebuttal, Ms. Anjali Upadhyay learned Advocate appearing for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority i.e. respondent no. 3 passed on a written instruction dated 5th December, 2019 appending the Land Acquisition notifications with respect to the lands in question. The written instructions filed today is taken on record.
A perusal thereof indicates that two notifications of the same date i.e. 29th June, 2013 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the lands in village Shahberi, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar for an area of 48.817 hectares and 109.143 hectares, have been issued by the State Government. The notification dated 9.9.2014 under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for declaration in continuation of the aforesaid notifications dated 29.6.2013 has also been brought on record.
A careful perusal of the said notifications indicate that lands in plot no. 97M., 98M. area 0.253 hectares and 164 area 1.190 hectares, are subject matter of acquisition.
In Writ-C No. 55560 of 2014 (Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), wherein the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act had been challenged, interim order dated 16.10.2014 has been passed to maintain status quo as it existed on the said date, in relation to the land acquisition at the site as also in the records by all the concerned parties until the next date of hearing. The interim order granted on 16.10.2014 is still in operation.
The aforesaid fact brought on record by Ms. Anjali Upadhyay learned Advocate for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority could not be disputed by Sri Uma Nath Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner..
From a careful perusal of the record, it is more than evident that the lands in question, subject matter of dispute, with respect to which the first information report dated 14.8.2019 had been lodged by the Greater Nodia Industrial Development Authority, is subject matter of acquisition under the notifications issued in the year 2013 and 2014 as noted above.
This fact has been deliberately concealed by the petitioner, who is deponent of the affidavits appended with the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit filed today.
The averments of the petitioner in paragraphs '14' and '15' of the writ petition and the supplementary affidavits are nothing but concealment of the correct facts. It is evident that a deliberate effort has been made to mislead and misguide this Court. The petitioner is, therefore, held liable to be prosecuted for committing perjury making interference in due dispensation of justice for making mis-statement on oath before a Court of law in the judicial proceeding.
Let a proceeding for perjury under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code be initiated against the deponent of the aforesaid affidavits, i.e. the petitioner herein namely Mahesh Chand Sharma son of late Khem Chandra resident of village Dunda Heda, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
Further this Court is of the opinion that in view of the deliberate concealment and mis-statement on the part of the petitioner, the present criminal writ petition seeking for quashing of the first information report is liable to be dismissed with a heavy cost of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month from today before the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.
The money so deposited shall be remitted in the account of the High Court Legal Services Authority.
Before parting with the case, it is noted that this Court though is not happy with the conduct of Sri Uma Nath Pandey learned Advocate for the petitioner as an officer of the Court, but desist from making any observation in this regard.
In view of the above, the criminal writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Brijesh