Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 3 October, 2017
W.P.No.2938/2016 (Dinesh Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and
others)
1
3.10.2017
Shri Gaurva Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondents/State.
Shri Sushil Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.5/EOW.
Petitioner by way of present petition seeks following reliefs:
"(1) That, the State respondents' authorities may kindly be directed to quash the entire proceedings of allotment of pattas to the encroachers as per report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, EOW, Gwalior and also to other persons who have encroached the charnoi/Government land. (2) That, the State respondents' authorities may kindly be directed to get free the Charnoi/Government land from the illegal encroachment and also safeguard the Charnoi/Government land.
(3) That, the State respondents'
authorities may kindly be directed to
initiate departmental proceedings against the erring officer by whose favour the charnoi land was illegal allotted to accused persons and also filed challan before the competent court within stipulated time. (4) That, the Revenue authorities may kindly be directed to restore/correct the revenue record regarding Charnoi/Govern- ment land.
(5) That, any other relief for doing justice in the matter may kindly be granted, cost may kindly be awarded."
W.P.No.2938/2016 (Dinesh Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and others) 2 The relief as sought for emanates from an order passed in W.P.No.6417/2014 (PIL) which was disposed of on 17.11.2014 in the following terms:
"(i) that, the respondent/concerned Police Station shall expedite investigation into crime No.75/2012 (supra) and prepare the report with due advertence to the material brought on record during investigation.
(ii) that, the respondents' shall ensure that persons allegedly impersonated themselves and execute fake sale deeds in respect of the Government charnoi land are proceeded with and also such officials involved in the alleged transactions who have connived and colluded with them in furtherance of the illegal act in accordance with laws;
(iii) that, the petitioners are also at liberty to submit before the Investigating Officer, the relevant clinching evidence in support of the allegations made by them in this writ petition;
(iv) that, the respondents' shall be well advised to carry out the investigation impartially, effectively and comprehensively to reach to a logical conclusion in a time bound programme and complete the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from today;
(v) that, on conclusion of investigation, if evidence is available against any individual or group of individuals, challan shall be filed before the competent Criminal Court having jurisdiction, for trial, in accordance with law; and
(vi) that, on completion of investigation, let legible copy the report be submitted before the Principal Registrar of this Bench for W.P.No.2938/2016 (Dinesh Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and others) 3 placing the matter in the Chambers of the Judges, for perusal."
It appears that in furtherance to the order in the said writ petition, an investigation was conducted by the Economic Offence Wing and a report was furnished on 19.9.2015 in the following terms:
"foospd fu"d"kZ%& izdj.k dh foospuk ds i'pkr~ izLrqr vafre izfrosnu Hkkx&1 esa foospd }kjk vkjksih&¼1½ cnzh izlkn vks>k] fu0 dkyke<+] cSjkM+] ¼3½ rRdkyhu ljiap y{e.k jkor] xzke dkyke<+ cSjkM+] ¼4½,u0ds0 ohjoky rRdkyhu vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh jktLo iksgjh] gky&lsokfuo`Rr ¼8½ t;dju flag xqtZj] rRdkyhu uk;c rglhynkj] gky&lsokfuo`Rr] ¼10½ jkefd'kksj f=osnh] rRdkyhu jktLo fujh{kd] gky&lsokfuo`Rr] ¼12½ ts0ih0 JhokLro] rRdkyhu jktLo fujh{kd] gky&lsokfuo`Rr] ¼13½ izseukjk;.k JhokLro] rRdkyhu iVokjh gky&lsokfuo`Rr] ds fo:) /kkjk 420] 409] 467] 468] 471] 120ch Hkk0n0fo0 ,oa lgifBr /kkjk 13¼1½Mh] 13¼2½ Hk0fu0v0 1988 dk vuqla/kku esa izcy o i;kZIr lk{; izekf.kr ik;s tkus ls vfHk;ksx i= ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor fd;k x;k gSA vkjksih dzekad 4&,u0ds0ohjoky] 8 t;dj.k flag xqtZj 10&jkefd'kksj f=osnh] 12 ts0ih0JhokLro] 13 izseukjk;.k JhokLro] 'kkldh; vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh gksdj orZeku esa lsokfuo`Rr gks pqds gS] vkjksih dzekad 1&cnzh izlkn vks>k ,oa vkjksih dzekad&3& y{e.k flag jkor] yksdlsod ugha gSA vkjksih dza-&1 cnzhizlkn vks>k] 3&y{e.k flag jkor] 4&,u0ds0ohjoky] 8& t;dj.k flag xqtZj 10& jkefd'kksj f=osnh] 12&ts0ih0JhokLro] 13&izseukjk;.k JhokLro ds fy;s vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr dh vko';drk ugha gSA ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ds vkjksih dzekad&2 jktdqekj vks>k iq= cnzh izlkn vks>k] fuoklh xzke dkyke< cSjkM ,oa vkjksih dzekad&14 c`tyky 'kekZ] rRdkyhu iVokjh fuoklh&xzke HknSjk cSjkM+ vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij e`rd gksuk ik;s x;sA ftuds e`R;q izek.k&i= vuqla/kku esa izkIr fd;s x;s gSA vkjksih dzekad&6 'kSysUnz jk;] rRdkyhu vfrfjDr rglhynkj] gky& rglhynkj fofn'kk] vkjksih dzekad&7 gkfde flag lqeu] rRdkyhu uk;c rglhynkj] gky&uk;c rglhynkj Vhdex<] 15&?ku';ke oekZ] rRdkyhu iVokjh gky& iVokjh iksgjh] 16&jkeoju ikod] rRdkyhu lfpo] ,oa vkjksih dzekad&17 ;ksxsUnz ckcw 'kqDyk] rRdkyhu jktLo fujh{kd 'kkldh; lsodksa ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dk;Zokgh gsrq e0iz0 'kklu jktLo foHkkx Hkksiky@vk;qDr Hkw vfHkys[k ,oa cankscLr ,oa iapk;r foHkkx ls Lohd`fr dh vko';drk gSA vkjksih dzekad 6&'kSysUnz jk;] W.P.No.2938/2016 (Dinesh Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and others) 4 7&gkfde flag] 15&?ku';ke oekZ] 16&jkeoju ikod] 17& ;ksxsUnz ckcw 'kqDyk ds fo:) i`Fkd ls vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr gsrq C;wjks izfrosnu eq[;ky; ds ek/;e ls fof/k fo/kk;h foHkkx Hkksiky dks Hkstk tkuk gSA vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr mijkar vkjksihx.kksa ds }kjk vfHk;ksx i= U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k tkosxkA foospd }kjk vkjksih dzekad& 5 &jkeckcw fl.Mksldj] rRdkyhu rglhynkj iksgjh] 9& lkfgj [kku] rRdkyhu rglhynkj iksgjh] 11& jkts'k oRl] rRdkyhu jktLo fujh{kd] cSjkM+] o u;s cuk;s x;s vkjksih daz-& 18 ekyrh iRuh y{ex.k jkto] fuoklh&dkyke<+] 19&foeyk iRuh jktdqekj vks>k% fuoklh&dkyke<+] 20&uanfd'kksj iq= cnzhizlkn vks>k] fuoklh&dkyke<+] 21&jkedqekj iq= cnzhizlkn vks>k] fuoklh&dkyke<+] 22& vfuy dqekj iq= cnzhizlkn vks>k] fuoklh&dkyke<+] 23&xk;=h iRuh X;klhjke vks>k] fuoklh&dkyke<+ ds fo:) foospuk esa vfrfjDr lk{; ,df=r djus gsrq /kkjk 173¼8½ ds varxZr foospuk tkjh jgus dh vuq'kalk dh gSA 6- lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh dk er %& vafre izfrosnu Hkkx&2 ds ek/;e ls izLrqr izfrosnu esa ,Mhihvks }kjk foospd ds vfHker ls lgefr n'kkZ;h x;h gSA lkFk gh izdj.k dh foospuk ls lacaf/kr dfri; ewy izdj.kksa ds vkns'kksa dks mYysf[kr fd;k gS] tks izkIr fd;s tkus gSA 7- iqfyl v/kh{kd dk vfHker%& vafre izfrosnu Hkkx&1 o vafre izfrosnu Hkkx&2 dh vuq'kalk ls lger gksrs gq, vkjksihx.k&¼1½ cnzh izlkn vks>k] fu0 dkyke<+] cSjkM+] ¼2½ rRdkyhu ljiap y{e.k jkor] xzke dkyke<+] ¼3½,u0ds0 ohjoky] Rrdkyhu vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh jktLo iksgjh] gky&lsokfuo`Rr ¼4½ t;dju flag xqtZj] rRdkyhu uk;c rglhynkj] gky&lsokfuo`Rr] ¼5½ jkefd'kksj f=osnh] rRdkyhu jktLo fujh{kd] gky&lsokfuo`Rr] ¼6½ ts0ih0 JhokLro] rRdkyhu jktLo fujh{kd] gky&lsokfuo`Rr] ¼7½ izseukjk;.k JhokLro] rRdkyhu iVokjh gky&lsokfuo`Rr] ¼8½ 'kSysUnz jk;] rRdkyhu vfrfjDr rglhynkj] gky&rglhynkj fofn'kk] ¼9½ gkfde flag lqeu] rRdkyhu uk;c rglhynkj] gky&uk;c rglhynkj Vhdex<+] ¼10½ ?ku';ke oekZ] rRdkyhu iVokjh gky& iVokjh iksgjh ¼11½ jkeoju ikod] rRdkyhu lfpo] ¼12½ ;ksxsUnz ckcw 'kqDyk] rRdkyhu jktLo fujh{kd 'kkldh; lsodksa ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dk;Zokgh dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA vkjksihx.k&jktdqekj vks>k iq= cnzhizlkn vks>k fuoklh xzke&dkyke<+ ,oa vkjksih&c`tyky 'kekZ rRdkyhu iVokjh fuoklh&xzke Hknsjk dh e`R;q gksus ls muds fo:) vfxze vfHk;kstu dk;Zokh laHko ugha gSA vkjksihx.k 1&jkeckcw fl.Mksldj] rRdkyhu rglhynkj iksgjh] 2& lkfgj [kku] rRdkyhu rglhynkj iksgjh] 3& jkts'k oRl] rRdkyhu jktLo fujh{kd] cSjkM+] 4& ekyrh iRuh y{e.k jkor] fuoklh&dkyke<+] 5&foeyk iRuh jktdqekj vks>k% fuoklh&dkyke<+] 6&uanfd'kksj iq= cnzhizlkn vks>k] W.P.No.2938/2016 (Dinesh Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and others) 5 fuoklh&dkyke<+] 7&jkedqekj iq= cnzhizlkn vks>k] fuoklh&dkyke<+] 8&vfuy dqekj iq= cnzhizlkn vks>k] fuoklh&dkyke<+] 9&xk;=h iRuh X;klhjke vks>k] fuoklh&dkyke<+ ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dk;Zokgh vfrfjDr lk{; ladyu dh vko';drk gS vr% mDr 9 vkjksihx.kksa ds fo:) /kkjk 173¼8½ n-iz-la- ds varxZr foospuk tkjh j[kus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA Taking cue from the said report, the present petition has been filed for the reliefs as adverted.
On being noticed, State of M.P. and its functionaries filed its return, wherein it is stated that:
"In this regard it is respectfully submitted that with respect to recommendations made by the EOW are not in dispute being matter of record. But with respect to cancellation of patta is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that some judgment and decree has been passed by the Competent court of jurisdiction, therefore, Tehsildar has made communications to the Collector, Shivpuri on 16.9.2016 that some judgment and decree has been passed against the State Government, therefore, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is required to be filed. Copy of aforesaid communication dated 16.9.2016 is at Annexure R/1. Thus, as the decree has already been passed by Competent Court of jurisdiction then certainly the answering respondents are proceedings with the matter by filing appropriate application before the competent court of jurisdiction that to competent authority i.e. Collector has already passed an order dated 28.2.2016 in pursuance to the directions given by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.6417/2014.
Thus, at present answering W.P.No.2938/2016 (Dinesh Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and others) 6 respondents are initiated action, thus, the present petition filed by the petitioner in the form of P.I.L. deserves to be disposed of, as the answering respondents have already initiated action against the patta holders."
It is further stated by the learned Govt. Advocate that the investigation will be taken to its logical end by lodging the prosecution and culprits will be brought to books.
It is also noticed from the reply that against cancellation of pattas, the patta holder who have already approached the Trial Court which has decreed the suit in their favour. From the return filed by the State Government, it transpires that these decrees are ex parte decrees and State has taken steps to set aside the same. Since effective steps have been taken by the State of M.P. and its functionaries and as assured that the persons who are unauthorized occupants of government land would be dwelt upon in accordance with law, no further order is warranted.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the civil suit or any other proceedings pending to be brought against the encroachers and other culprits. We are not impressed with the submission put-forth on behalf of the petitioner, who has approached this Court pro bono. Since the alleged law W.P.No.2938/2016 (Dinesh Sharma and another Vs. State of M.P. and others) 7 breakers already proceeded against by the State which is a custodian of the public property, in our considered opinion, petitioner is not necessary party in these proceedings. Consequently, we are declined the permission sought by the petitioner to participate in all these proceedings.
In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of finally in above terms.
(Sanjay Yadav) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
pawar/-