Telangana High Court
Penumatsa Ramakrishna Raju vs State Of Telangana on 26 September, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.958 of 2018
ORDER:
The petitioners/A1 to A4 are seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.588 of 2017 filed by the de-facto complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which was registered for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC on the file of Gachibowli police station.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
3. Originally one Sri Chintala Yadaiah and others were the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.232.14 guntas in Sy.Nos.78, 90 to 93 of Kondapur Village, Ranga Reddy District. The said land was declared as valid under A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Landa Act, 1950 (for short, "the Act"). Out of the said Ac.232.14 guntas, they sold Ac.220.00 in Sy.Nos.85 and 86 only to various persons. Out of the said Ac.220.00 guntas of land, A1 and A2 and Smt. Yamini and others have purchased Ac.17.00 of land from Chintala Yadaiah and others under different sale deeds bearing 2 Nos.10031/1995, 10032/1995, 10054/1995 and 10055/1995.
4. Chintala Lingam and others have executed notarized General Power of Attorney in favour of the de-facto complainant on 08.09.2017 in respect of Ac.1.07 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.85 and 86 of Kondapur village and since then the de-facto complainant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
5. On verifying the actual measurements of the land, the de-facto complainant came to know that A1 and A2 in collusion with A3 and A4 created fake gift settlement deeds bearing No.2415 of 2001 dated 03.04.2001 pertaining to the land to an extent of Ac.1.07 guntas in Sy.Nos.85 and 86 of Kondapur Village. A1 developed the said land into plots and after obtaining final layout permit bearing No.1091/MPS/HUDA/1997 on 16.07.1998 from the municipal authorities in the partnership with the Golden Tulip Estates, sold the entire land of Ac.17.00. 3
6. The de-facto complainant being the owner of Ac.1.07 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.85 and 86 on account of notarized General Power of Attorney constructed a compound wall on four sides and put up basket ball polls using as a playground. All the petitioners/accused trespassed forcibly and occupied the land belonging to him and the de-facto complainant has filed O.S.No.1512 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the same is pending. All the petitioners are trying to grab the land by creating illegal and fake documents, threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences.
7. The learned Magistrate has forwarded the said complaint to the police, who have registered a case in Crime No.588 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed seeking quashment of the FIR on the following grounds: 4
The alleged dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Even according to the de-facto complainant, the petitioners/accused are the owners of Ac.17.00 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.85 and 86 having purchased the same from original owners under registered sale deeds. The property, which the de-facto complainant alleging that the petitioners have encroached is part and parcel of Ac.17.00 guntas of land. The de-facto complainant has no locus standi to file a complaint. The petitioners have developed the said land and converted the same into plots, sold them to various individuals and that subsequent to purchase of land to an extent of Ac.17.00 by the petitioners, the land in dispute is declared as surplus land under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, thereby the entire land is vested with the Government. The de-facto complainant though filed O.S.No.1512 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy seeking injunction, fevourable orders are not granted in his favour thereby a false case has been foisted.
9. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5
10. Now, the point for determination is whether the FIR in Crime No.588 of 2017 against the petitioners can be quashed?
11. There is no dispute that the petitioners have purchased Ac.17.00 guntas of land from its original owners by way of registered sale deeds in the year 1995. Subsequently, after obtaining permission from the municipal authorities, obtained a layout by converting the entire land of Ac.17.00 guntas into housing plots along with Golden Tulip Estates, the house plots were sold to various individuals and they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that subsequent to the purchase of Ac.17.00 guntas of land and conversion of the same into housing plots, the rest of the land belonging to their vendors is declared as surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act thereby neither the original owners nor the purchasers are having 6 any interest, as the excess land is vested with the Government.
13. Learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submitted that the land to an extent of Ac.1.07 guntas in Sy.Nos.85 and 86 was given in favour of the de-facto complainant under notarized power of attorney on 08.09.2017 by one Chintala Lingam. The said Ac.1.07 guntas of land was converted as playground and put up basket ball polls in order to denote the boundaries of the said land. According to the petitioners, the said land of Ac.1.07 guntas belong to them.
14. On careful perusal of the complaint filed by the de- facto complainant, it is not clear as to on what date the land belonging to the de-facto complainant was encroached by the petitioners. According to para 4 of the complaint, after verifying with the actual measurements of the land, the de-facto complainant has realized that A1 and A2 have executed gift settlement deed in respect of land covered by Ac.1.07 guntas by the de-facto complainant in favour of the daughters of A1 and A2, who are shown as A3 and A4. The 7 de-facto complainant even does not know as to when the encroachment was done. The sale deed in favour of the petitioners is in the year 1995, whereas the power of attorney executed in favour of the de-facto complainant is in the year 2017. Whether the alleged encroachment of the petitioners are prior to 2017 or from the year 1995 when the petitioners have purchased the land from original owner Chintala Lingam are the questions to be considered. Not only that, the de-facto complainant has not filed the so-called survey through which he came to know the actual measurements with the boundaries and realized about the encroachment of the petitioners.
15. Therefore, without there being any record that the petitioners have encroached as to which part of the land, what extent of land the de-facto complainant has loosely contended that A1 and A2 have created fake documents and executed registered gift deeds in respect of the land belonging to the de-facto complainant. If at all any document was executed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in favour of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the de-facto complainant is 8 expected to approach the civil Court and file a suit for cancellation of registered gift deeds stating that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have no right over the said property. Even otherwise, in case if petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have no right over the property and if they executed registered gift deed in favour of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, they will not get any valid title, as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are not having any title according to the de-facto complainant.
16. The issue between the parties is purely civil in nature and in order to arm twist the petitioners, criminal complaint has been filed after unsuccessful attempt made by the de-facto complainant in the civil Court to get orders against the petitioners. The de-facto complainant is not the owner of the property. Even according to him, he is the power of attorney holder of the original owner. Original owner has not come before this Court. The question therefore arises whether the de-facto complainant being the power of attorney holder can file a complaint before the Court.
9
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an authority reported in A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and another1, wherein it is held that the GPA holder cannot file a complaint.
18. Considering the circumstances discussed above and viewed from any angle, no case is made out against the petitioners and therefore the petition is liable to allowed.
19. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.588 of 2017 against the petitioners on the file of Gachibowli Police Station are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 26.09.2022 ES 1 (2014) 11 SCC 790