Madras High Court
S.Sankara Seetharaman vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 January, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 & 12593 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).Nos.1, 1, 2 & 2 of 2015
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8796 of 2015
S.Sankara Seetharaman ...Petitioner / Accused No.1
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Block 1, Thallakulam, Resident's Enclave,
Pudhu Natham Road, Madurai-625 002.
2. R.J.Baskar,
President, Agrini Enclave Houses,
and Flat Owners Association,
78, T.P.K. Road,
Andalpuram, Madurai. ...Respondents / Complainants
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.
1 of 2015, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Land Grabbing Cases)
Court, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.A.Muruganantham
For R-1 : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/9
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12593 of 2015
Nallathambi ...Petitioner / Accused No.2
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Block 1, Thallakulam, Resident's Enclave,
Pudhu Natham Road, Madurai-625 002.
2. R.J.Baskar,
President, Agrini Enclave Houses,
and Flat Owners Association,
78, T.P.K. Road,
Andalpuram, Madurai. ...Respondents / Complainants
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.
1 of 2015, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Land Grabbing Cases)
Court, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.A.Muruganantham
For R-1 : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners, who arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1 of 2015, before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Land Grabbing Cases) Court, Madurai, have filed these quash petitions. The petitioners (hereinafter referred as Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 for the sake of brevity and convenience)
2. Accused No.1-Promoter Developer of the Visvas Promoters Private Limited has filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8796 of 2015 and Accused No.2-Assistant http://www.judis.nic.in 2/9 Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015 Executive Engineer, South Zone, Madurai Corporation, has filed Crl.O.P. (MD).No.12593 of 2015.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent had purchased a flat from Accused No.1. Accused No.2 is the Assistant Executive Engineer, South Zone, Madurai Corporation. During the year 2003, the first accused owned lands in Madakulam, Madurai Corporation, at Ward No.41 in Survey Nos.17B, 20/B8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21/1, 22/1, 2, 23/1A1, 1A1C, 2A and 4A and to an extent of 15 acres of land was used for developing and putting up multi storeyed flats, for which, he had obtained planning permission and building permission from the Director, District Town Country Planning (hereinafter referred as D.T.C.P. for the sake of brevity) in Na.Ka.No. 15914/2003, dated 31.07.2003. The multi storeyed flats were divided into seven parts in a phased manner and he had sold the same. During the approval, Accused No.1 had shown five plots as public space and open space reservation (hereinafter referred as O.S.R. for the sake of brevity). Representing the same, he had sold flats to one such buyer and the de facto complainant / second respondent. The Accused No.2 had modified and change the O.S.R. land and given a revised planning permission in C.No.22275/2006, C.No.24746/2003 and C.No.5216/2006, thereby, Accused No.1 was permitted to modify the width of the road and change the open space. Accused No.1 in connivance with Accused No.2 had obtained approval in njkngh.1/09708/07, dated 30.11.2007, which Accused No.2 is not empowered to sign. In view of http://www.judis.nic.in 3/9 Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015 the same, both accused have committed the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 469 I.P.C.
4. On completion of investigation, L.W.1 to L.W.22 were examined and several documents came to be filed before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Land Grabbing Cases) Court, Madurai. It has now been transferred to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.
5. The contention of the petitioners is that according to the second respondent, the occurrence is said to have been taken place between the years 2003 and 2007 and a case came to be registered only in the year 2013, after a lapse of seven years. There have been five approvals in this case and the approvals have been obtained from the concerned authorities. For the total development of the area, 10% of the land has to be allocated as open space reservation (O.S.R). Accused No.1 has allocated 6,821.40 square metres, which is around 10.68%. Hence, they have allocated requisite O.S.R land as per law. There seems to be some dispute with regard to the second respondent / de facto complainant, who represents Agrini Enclave Madurai with Sri Nidhi House Owners' Welfare Association and Agrini Flat Sectors Basic Ameneties Maintenance Welfare Association, due to which, to brook vengeance the above false case has been preferred. Earlier to filing of the criminal complaint, a civil suit was filed before the learned District Munsif, Madurai in O.S.No.1164 of 2008, which was latter withdrawn by the second respondent / http://www.judis.nic.in 4/9 Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015 de facto complainant on 27.10.2009, in which, he had categorically endorsed that he was expecting relief from W.P.(MD).No.8630 of 2009, which is filed and pending before this Court, which is also on similar allegations. The Writ Petition is still pending before this Court. In the said Writ Petition, the official viz., D.T.C.P. and the Corporation Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai, had filed a counter, wherein, they have categorically stated that there have been no violation in issuance of permission from Town and Country Planning and more particularly, the petitioners had not caused any violation in providing of O.S.R. lands. Hence, he prays for quashing of the Criminal Original Petitions. He further submitted that there was a dispute between the Collector and the promoter and the Collector had used the second respondent / de facto complainant to foist a false case against him.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / de facto complainant submitted and filed typed set of papers, wherein, he produced five proceedings pertaining to the property. According to the second respondent / de facto complainant, the four proceedings were from 31.07.2003 to 27.03.2006 and all these proceedings were issued by the D.T.C.P. Chennai and as per the proceedings of D.T.C.P. it is categorically stated that the parking area shown in the plan should be used for parking purpose alone and no modification or alteration shall be done in the permitted plan without prior approval from the D.T.C.P. The public usage places like Community hall, Parking and Recreation shall not be altered or modified. http://www.judis.nic.in 5/9 Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015 Accused No.2 has issued the fifth proceedings in this case. Accused No.2 has issued the order on behalf of the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, granting permission to Accused No.1 to modify and change the public place areas and to maintain O.S.R. of 10.68% as well granting permission to a private person to maintain public park, which is against the dictum and order of the D.T.C.P. When Accused No.1 obtained orders during the earlier four occasions from D.T.C.P. and the fifth order, which he had obtained from Accused No.2, who is not a competent authority to sign and issue such order, results to gross violation of law and the signature found in these documents, are without authority, amounts to forgery. He further submitted that L.W.17 is Secretary of the Local Planning Authority, Madurai, wherein, he had categorically stated that it is only the D.T.C.P. who got the authority and not the Local planning authorities, more specifically Accused No.2 in this case. There is no proceedings approved by competent authority before issuance of order in njkngh1/09708/07, dated 30.11.2007.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submits that the Local Planning Authority has no right to give approval in issuance of any order as regards to the multi storeyed plans without getting approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning. The approved plans as per Na.Ka.No.15914/2003, dated 31.07.2003, have been produced, in which, there has been a mention about a road, park, primary school, car parking and community hall. The changes and modifications made http://www.judis.nic.in 6/9 Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015 in the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings njkngh1/09708/07, dated 30.11.2007, is without authority. There are statement from the witnesses from the D.T.C.P. as well as from the Local Planning Authority in support of the same. Further submitted that the order passed by Accused No.2 was not sanctioned from the Commissioner. Further the gift deed, which has been registered as Document No.8835 of 2008, found at page Nos.19 and 20 of the typed set, the revision has been annexed. As per this revision plan and the plan proceedings in Na.Ka.No.15914/2003, dated 31.07.2003, there seems to be gross violation in changes and this change is without any authority. He further submitted that on completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. He further submitted that the points raised by the petitioners are to be raised only during the trial.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / de facto complainant submitted that the cases are of the year 2015. Due to the pendency of these Criminal Original Petitions, the trial in these cases could not be proceeded and it is almost five years have lapsed., hence, he prays for dismissal of these Criminal Original Petitions and to dispose of C.C.No.1 of 2015, within a stipulated time.
9. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the materials available on record, it is seen that the fifth order of revision has been issued by the Madurai Corporation, which seems to be without authority. http://www.judis.nic.in 7/9 Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015 Further from the statement of witnesses and documents, annexed grave suspicion points towards petitioners. In view of the same, this Court finds that the points raised by the petitioners are to be raised only during the trial and not in these quash petitions. It is made clear that observations made herein is only for the purpose of disposal of the quash petitions, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
10. In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Considering the case in C.C.No.1 of 2015, is pending without progress for more than four years, the Trial Court to give priority in disposal of the above case in a time bound manner.
20.01.2020
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
tsg
To
1.The Special Judicial Magistrate (Land Grabbing Cases) Court, Madurai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
3. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8/9 Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
tsg Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.8796 and 12593 of 2015 20.01.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 9/9