Madras High Court
V.Vijayalakshmi vs The State Rep.By on 8 July, 2022
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA
KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.7749 of 2021
V.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State rep.by
Inspector of Police
ALGSC-II, Central Crime Branch
Greater Chennai Police
Greater Chennai Police
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
2.Mr.Babu
Asst.Engineer (Highways Department)
City Road Section III
Saidapet 600 015. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to FIR
No.182 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, ALGSC-II,
Chennai and quash the same in respect of the Petitioner.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran for R1
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition had been filed to call for the records relating to FIR No.182 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, ALGSC-II, Chennai and quash the same in respect of the Petitioner.
2. When the case came up for hearing on 20.06.2022, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his arguments which was recorded on 20.06.2022. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired the lands in Survey No.148, Korattur Village, Thiruvallur District. The land was 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 earmarked for future expansion and development works. The owner of the land namely, Krishna (died) and the legal heirs are alleged to have indulged in creating documents whereby one Sunitha had approached the Tahsildar for sub-division of the properties in Survey No.148/1. Therefore, based on the enquiry, the Firka Surveyor visited the properties, made measurements with the help of Revenue records and he had marked the sub-division of the properties in his records. He had sent the records to the Head Surveyor. The Head Surveyor had endorsed and sent for recommendation for sub-division to the Tahsildar, where, Tahsildar on verification of entire proceedings made by Firka Surveyor to Head Surveyor, had approved the same. Based on this, the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar is alleged to have granted patta for the Sub-division in Survey No.148/1 for 0.49 cents.
3. The learned Government Advocate Crl.Side) appearing for the first Respondent vehemently objected to the line of arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stating that one Mr.Balakrishnan approached the Hon'ble First Bench. Based on his Writ Petition in 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 W.P.No.18656 of 2016 dated 14.06.2016, the Hon'ble First Bench directed CBCID investigation. Based on the CBCID investigation, a case was registered and after proceeding with the investigation, the Petitioner herein was arrayed as A-11. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) sought time to file counter and the case was posted to 30.06.2022.
4. On 30.06.2022, at the request of the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), further adjournment was granted and the case was posted to 08.07.2022.
5. Today (08.07.2022), when the case came up for hearing, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, after acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act, possession of the land was taken. The land owner's legal heirs are alleged to have obtained patta for the said land. Therefore, the Assistant Engineer (Highways Dept) had preferred a complaint against the said legal heirs of the land owners, who have already received the compensation for the land 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 acquired stating that they had created fraudulent documents and sold the land to third party.
6. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, when the legal heirs of the deceased approached the Tahsildar for grant of patta, the Head Surveyor had visited the property and measured the property marked by the Revenue records, and he had endorsed the signature and based on the endorsement made by the Surveyor, Head Surveyor and recommendation for Sub-Division to the Tashildar, the Deputy Tahsildar had alleged to have granted patta for S.No.148/1 for 0.49 cents.
7. Today (08.07.2022), counter has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Team-22, ALGSC-II, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai 600 007, who is the Investigation Officer in this case. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also relied on the averments in the counter. As per counter, Tr.Babu, B.E., Assistant Engineer (Highways) City Road Section-III, Saidapet, Chennai-15 had preferred a 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 complaint stating that inner ring road starting from Guindy, Kathipara Junction extends upto Retteri via Ashok Nagar, Vadapalani, Koyambedu, Thirumangalam and Korattur, which belongs to Highways Department, Tamil Nadu and these roads connect to the National Highways 4, 5 and 4 around 89 cents in Survey No.148 in Korattur Village acquired from legal heirs of Tmt.Chinnammal & Perumal Naicker i.e., Munusamy, Subramani, Alamelu in the year 1987. Out of the acquired lands, some parts were kept vacant for laying platform and for future expansion. The legal heirs of Chinnammal & Perumal Naicker, Munusamy, Subramani and Alamelu are the previous owners and other Accused Balakrishnan and T.S.Venkataraghavan, even after receiving the compensation for the entire 89 cents from the Government, had created documents through fraudulent persons and sold the lands in S.No.148/1 for 0.49 cents to the third party based on the survey report and patta obtained by them for the lands in S.Nos.148 in 148/1, 148/2 and had been registered as Doc.No.228/06 at SRO Konnur. On the strength of the General Power of Attorney (GPOA), obtained by T.S.Venkataraghavan from the legal heirs of Chinnammal & Perumal Naicker, Munusamy, Subramani and Alamelu, 6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 the said T.S.Venkataraghavan executed the said deed in favour of Balakrishnan. Therefore, the complaint was preferred by Tr.Babu, B.E., Assistant Engineer (Highways) City Road Section-III, Saidapet, Chennai-15 to the Anti Land & Grabbing Special Cell-II, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered in Crime No.182 of 2011 on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Vepery. Also, Balakrishnan had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.18656 of 2016 on the file of the High Court. The Hon'ble First Bench, in the Writ Petition, had passed orders on 14.06.2016 as “we implead the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID as the 8th Respondent. We entrust the enquiry to the 8th Respondent to carry out investigation and submit a report to us qua the role of the owners and Revenue Officers concerned, including the Sub-Registrar's Office.”
8. Based on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, the CBCID conducted enquiry over it and filed a final report before the Hon'ble First Bench of the High Court about the encroachment of the Government land by the private persons and the culpability of the 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 Revenue Officials without scrutinizing the Government records of Registration Department during the period between 2006 and 2016. Therefore, the Anti & Land Grabbing Cell of the Central Crime Branch had proceeded with the investigation. During investigation, it came to light that Tr.Mariappan, VAO, Tr.Pushparaj, Deputy Tahsildar, Tr.T.Dhansekaran, Taluk Deputy Surveyor, Tr.Jayachandran, Head Surveyor, Tr.Ramachandran, then Tahsildar, Ambattur and the Petitioner/Accused-11 namely, Tmt.Vijayalakshmi, Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District had committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w.109 IPC.
9. The counter filed by the Investigation Officer clearly stated that the Petitioner herein/Accused No.11 namely, Tmt.Vijayalakshmi, who has served as the Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, colluded with the other Revenue Officials viz., Tr.T.Dhansekaran, Taluk Deputy Surveyor, Tr.Jayachandran, Head Surveyor and Tr.Ramachandran, then Tahsildar and the private person such as Tmt.Sunitha and Tr.Raghavan with the common intention and 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 thereby issued fraudulent patta specifying the land as Ward-E, Block-33, T.S.No.189/3 measuring 230 sq.mt.patta Taluk 8A/196/1419, dated 23.07.2009 for vacant land belonging to highways department in Korattur Village in respect of Survey No.148.
10. It is pertinent to point out that the fraudulent patta was signed and issued by the Petitioner/Accused No.11 namely, Tmt.Vijayalakshmi, Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District for the property that was acquired by the Highways Department from the original land owners viz., Chinnammal & Perumal Naicker, for which, compensation was received by the legal heirs by Chinnammal & Perumal Naicker. After receiving the compensation, the land was kept vacant for future expansion of the Highways, which had been misused by creating fraudulent Revenue records by the legal heirs of Chinnammal & Perumal Naicker in collusion with the Government officials. It is further stated by the Investigation Officer that, based on the materials collected during the course of investigation, the alleged property belongs to the Highways Department as per proceedings of Land Acquition Officer- 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 cum-Special Tahsildar (Highways) vide No.1/87 dated 09.11.1984 and Government Gazatte of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department vide order No.486, dated 16.05.1985. The Petitioner herein willfully omitted to perform their legally bound duty and thereby, she colluded with the Accused in order to grab the property belonging to Highways Department. Therefore, the investigation had been completed to proceed against the Sanctioning Officials of the Revenue Department for their involvement in this crime. The Investigation Officer had obtained prior sanction from the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the investigation is pending for obtained prior sanction from the Secretary, Revenue Department, to proceed against the Revenue Officials before the Court of law. After obtaining the sanction from the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, the final report of the investigation will be laid before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate along with counter. The Investigation Officer had also furnished the documents relating to this case as typed set. In the typed set, it is found that, as per proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration vide Proceeding No.7373/V2/2020 dated 28.07.2021, based on the letter addressed by the 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, dated 24.01.2020, Government letter from Commercial Taxes and Registration (H) Department, dated 22.03.2021, letter of the Public Prosecutor, Chennai High Court legal opinion No.71/2021, dated 08.04.2021, for the offence of registering documents in fraudulent manner without verifying Revenue records for the property in S.No.148 of Korattur Village pertaining to 89 cents for which compensation of Rs.80,527.20/- was already paid to original landlord, granted sanction to proceed against the erring Officials. Against the Sub-Registrar of the Registration Department, who worked in the period from 2006 to 2016, the final report of the investigation had been laid after investigating the Registrars and Sub-Registrars involved the registration of the fraudulent document.
11. Similarly, the Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Chennai, vide R.C.No.Y4/9420/2021 dated 16.08.2021 had granted to sanction of Prosecution against the Accused, A-8/Dhanasekaran, Taluk Deputy Surveyor, Tr.Jayachandran, Head Surveyor, Tr.Ramachandran, then Tahsildar, Ambattur and the 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 Petitioner/Accused No.11 Tmt.Vijayalakshmi, Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, who had sub-divided the land and issued patta as Ward- E, Block-33, T.S.No.189/3 measuring 230 sq.mt.patta Taluk 8A/196/1419, dated 23.07.2009 to Tr.Raghavan and Tmt.Sunitha, based on the letter of the Commissioner of Police, CCB-II, in Crime No.182 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC.
12. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District had issued proceedings in R.C.No.1770/2020/A3 dated 25.07.2020 granting sanction to Prosecute against A-11/Vijayalakshmi, Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. Therefore, sanction had already been obtained for filing the final report before the Competent Court.
13. In the light of the above development, it is clear that the Investigation Officer had collected sufficient materials incriminating the Petitioner herein for colluding with various Officials in collusion with the professional land grabber and helped them in selling the land that was already acquired by the Highways Department from the land owners for 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 which compensation was also received by the legal heirs of the land owners. The same legal heirs had colluded with the Revenue Officials in creating fraudulent documents and caused loss to the Government. Therefore, any offence of Land Grabbing or causing loss to Government cannot be viewed leniently. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was suspended on the date of her superannuation and therefore, he had filed this petition seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.182 of 2011 cannot be at all, the Collector being the Competent Authority over the Deputy Tahsildar had rightly suspected her for the offence, as she being a responsible person cannot claim ignorance of the procedure regarding grant of patta or regarding sub-division of Survey Number. Therefore, what are all argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner have to be considered only as valuable defence that is to be tried and considered by the Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence and not at this stage by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. When there are materials against the Petitioner herein, this Court exercising extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot invoke the same to quash the First 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 Information Report as per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.
14. In the light of the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as having no merits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.07.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dna To
1.The Inspector of Police ALGSC-II, Central Crime Branch Greater Chennai Police Greater Chennai Police Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
dna Crl.O.P.No.14218 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.7749 of 2021 08.07.2022 15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis