Bombay High Court
Ram Purshottam Awasthi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 October, 2020
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.
2427 OF 2020
Ram Purshottam Awasthi .. Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.2538 OF 2020
Vinay Tarachand Chawla .. Intervenor
In the matter between :
Ram Purshottam Awasthi .. Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Mr.Aabad Ponda-Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Kamlesh Ghumre i/b
Ms.Sonali Jadhav for the Applicant.
Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State.
Mr.S.V.Marwadi a/w Mr.Sandeep Karnik for the Intervenor.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
RESERVED ON : 21st OCTOBER, 2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 29th OCTOBER, 2020 P.C:-
1. The applicant has filed this application anticipating his arrest in C.R.No.435 of 2020 registered at Lonavala Police Station, Pune Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with 34 of IPC.
Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 2/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc
2. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Ponda for the applicant and learned APP Mrs.Deshmukh for the State.
3. The submission advanced on behalf of the applicant is to the effect that he has been falsely implicated and the allegations levelled are baseless. He relied upon a notice issued by the complainant through his counsel on 17th December, 2019 and it is stated that it was responded to. The learned senior counsel would urge that there is no role assigned to the applicant in the FIR and in fact he is the agricultural tenant in the subject land by virue of his tenancy agreement executed between the owners of the land and the applicant. This agreement is prior in point of time of the MOUs. The applicant's case is that he has assigned the right over the said laid by Deed of Assignment dated 13 th November, 2013 for consideration of Rs.1,85,00,000/- and thereafter he has nothing to do with any other transaction. The Assignment Deed did is dated 13 th December, 2013 and placed on record by the applicant.
4. In order to consider the submissions of the learned counsel, the case of the prosecution require to be mentioned briefly :
The complaint was lodged by one Vinay Tarachand Chawla with Lonavla Police Station. It revolves around Survey No.98, area 14.5 acres situated in Taluka Maval, Lonavla, District Pune. The crux of the complaint is to the following effect.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::
3/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc
The complainant is a resident of Mumbai and he along with his father had formed two firms in the name of Chinmay Associate and Chinmay Estate. The said firms deal with the sale and purchase of land. His father Tarachand Chawla is a partner in Chinmay Estate along with one Gautam T Jasnani, son of the complainant's sister. The sister of the complainant is one Kanchan Tulsi Jasnani and her husband is Tulsi Parmanand Jasnani (accused No.1) against whom various allegations have been levelled.
In September 2013, Tulsi Parmanand Jasnani approached the complainant's father in respect of a piece of land situate in Mauje, Pune nama, Lonavla, Taluka Maval, district Pune with description of Survey No.98, admeasuring 14.5 acres. He putforth a proposal for purchase of the said agricultural land and for its development. It was informed by him that one Smt Babhabhai Landge, Nirmala Machindra Tavare, Ranjana Ramesh Sathe are the owners of the said agricultural land and one Kishore G Lalwani (accused No.3) and Kishor Mandyani (accused No.5) are in possession of the said land. Ram Awasthi and Sharada Mahesh Alimchandani (accused No.6) were stated to be the agricultural tenants in the said property. The complainant and his father were informed that on 23 rd February 2013, Kishor Lalwani and Kishor Mandyani had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the three original owners for consideration of Rs.Two Crores and it was a notarized document in which Ram Awassthi and Sharda were shown as Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 4/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc agricultural tenants. It is alleged by the complainant that Tulsi Jasnani informed his father that he had fixed a deal with Kishor Lalwani and Kishor Madiani for Rs.27 crores. He also informed that Kishor Lalwani and Kishor Madyani would help them in clearing the impediments for conversion of the land for non- agricultural purpose and for completing the transaction. The father of the complainant was assured that they are acquiring the land at a very cheap rate and when developed, it would yield huge returns. The assurance given was subject to stipulation that certain amount would shell out and paid to the original owners as well as the tenants and a Memorandum of Understanding would have to be executed.
5. Being projected in this manner, the complainant along with his father visited the said land and were satisfied about its location. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by cheque to the co-owners Smt.Bababai Landge, Smt.Nirmala Machhindra Tavare and Smt.Ranjana Sathe. Thus, after making the payment of Rs.7,50,000/-, on 5 th October 2013, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed in the office of Vinod Mistry. By this Memorandum of Understanding, the original owners agreed to accept the amount of Rs.Two crores as compensation for the land and to relinquish the rights therein. As directed by Tulsi Jasnani, the agricultural tenant Ram Awasthi was paid an amount of Rs.1,85,00,000/- for relinquishing his rights. Kishor Lalwani who was alleged to be in possession of Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 5/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc the said land was also paid an amount of Rs.1,08,00,000/- through various cheque and bank transaction (RTGS). During this time, since it surfaced that in the said land, apart from the two agricultural tenants, Bombay Mission Superior Trust, an NGO also had some interest and the two trustees of the said Society would relinquish their right only on receipt of consideration. The complainant therefore, parted with an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in favour of Smt.Mishclle Briganza and Smt.Brigette Briganza. The complainant signed on a paper and was assured a Relinquishment Deed by Bombay Mission Superior Trust. At the say of Tulsi, the complainant also paid an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- plus Rs.10,00,000/- plus Rs.15,00,000/- to Mahesh Alim Chandani (accused No.2), husband of Sharda. Thereafter, it is alleged that Mahesh assured the complainant to render all his assistance in development of the property, for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,68,00,000/- by RTGS/cheque. The complainant thus alleged that from the personal account as well as the account of Chinmay Estate, for the purpose of purchasing the subject property, he parted with an amount of Rs.7,26,50,000/- by making payments from time to time. However, since there was no progress in spite of parting of the amount when he inquired with Tulsi Jasnani, another agreement came to be executed which was prepared by Advocate Vinod Mistry on a 500 rupees stamp paper. On 26th May, 2015, a photostat of which was handed over to the complainant.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::
6/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc
6. When the transaction did not finalise, the complainant and his father became anxious and when the inquired from Tulsi, they were informed that in respect of the said property, the State Government has passed an order and the deal would be finalized very soon. The complainant became suspicious and through a third person, he discovered that the subject plot at Survey No.98, Mauje Pune name, Lonavla, Taluka Maval, is a Government land and the Landge Family and others are simple tenants and on the said plot, apart from the Landge family, no one else is in possession. The complainant then confronted this fact with Tulsi but he gave evasive answers. The complainant ran from post to pillar making inquiries with the other accused persons but they also avoided the quieries. Tulsi then promised the complainant that Mahesh Alim Chandani is going to sell one of his property in Mumbai from which he is expecting a huge return and thereafter the amount would be returned back to the complainant. On 26th february 2019, photo copy of the cheque of Rs.7,28,50,000/- and one photo copy of RTGS form was given to them and they were assured of return of their amount soon. However, the patience of the complainant did not yield any fruitful result, ultimately on 16th August 2020, the complainant approached the police station alleging that all the accused persons through a conspiracy had swindled amount of Rs.7,26,50,000/- and had tricked him.
7. The learned APP Mrs.Deshmukh has placed on record a Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 7/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc compilation of documents. These are the documents which have been also included by the applicants in their respective compilations including the counsel for intervenor Shri Marwadi. These are the common documents which are relied upon, I deem it fit to refer from the compilation submitted by the learned APP. From the reading of the documents, following glaring facts can be discerned.
(a) A Memorandum of Understanding is executed on 23rd February 2013 between the owners of the subject land Smt. Bababai, Nirmala and Smt.Ranjana (referred to as 'vendors') and one Kishor Mandiani, resident of Khar West and one Kishor Lalwani referred to as 'purchasers'. The recital of the said MOU state that the vendors are seized and possessed of or otherwise sufficiently entitled to land bearing Survey No.98, Village Pune, Taluka Maval, District Pune, admeasuring 14.5 acres.
Description of the agricultural plot is given in the schedule. The said agreement state that the vendors have inducted two agricultural tenants i.e. Ram Awasthi and Sharada Alimchandani by virtue of two separate agreements in the year 2000 and they are cultivating the agricultural products on the said property. By the said MOU, the vendor agreed to sell, transfer and assign all their right, title and interest in the said property and that purchasers agreed to purchase and acquire right, title or interest of the vendors for a consideration of Rs. Two crores. The schedule of payment is contained in para-3 of the agreement. Rupees Three lakhs have been shown to be paid by the Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 8/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc purchasers to the vendors and received by them. Balance payment to be made within 10 days from the vendors causing clear and marketable title and removing all defects relating to title of the said property. On execution, the vendors authorized M/s.Vinod Mistry and Co, the Solicitors for the purchaser to issue a public notice in newspaper inviting claims and/or objections of any person towards sale and assignment of the property. The MOU contain a clause for handing over of vacant and peaceful possession of the property upon execution of the documents. The purchasers were cast a responsibility to settle the agricultural tenants at their own cost. The said documents was signed by the vendors and Kishor Lalwani as purchaser. The owners acknowledged receipt of Rs.One Lakh each by cheque number mentioned therein.
(b) On 5th October 2013, the three owners of the said property again execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the complainant, the partner of M/s.Chinmay Estate as purchaser. The vendors represented that the property is in their possession and they had inducted two agricultural tenants Ram Awasthi and Sharada Mahesh Alim Chandani by two separate agreements in the year 2000 and state that they are cultivating the said land. By the said MOU, the vendors agreed to sell, transfer and assign their right, title and interest in the property to the complainant for consideration of Rs.Two crores out of which an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- has been paid by the purchaser to the vendors which they have acknowledged and balance payment is Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 9/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc understood to be paid within 10 days from the vendor causing clear and marketable title to the property and after removing all the defects relating to the property. Pertinent to note that the said MOU do not make any reference to the earlier MOU dated 23 rd February 2013. The vendors make an assertion that they are sufficiently entitled to the said property and save and except the agricultural tenants, they have not created any third party rights and title of the said property is clear and marketable. The vendors acknowledge receipt of Rs.10,50,000/- collectively. The covenant no.8 of the agreement refer to handing over of vacant and peaceful possession to the purchasers who would settle the agricultural tenants at their own cost. The agreement bears the signature of the three owners and the complainant.
(c) Another agreement on record is the agricultural tenancy agreement executed between the three owners of the property and Mr.Ram Awasthi which is dated 29 th April 2000. It record that the owners are seized and possessed of the agricultural land at Survey No.98, Village Pune, Taluka Maval, district Pune, admeasuring 14.5 acres and the owners require service of the agricultural tenant who is well versed with agricultural activities and knowledge about farming and therefore, he is inducted as tenant with share of 40%.
(d) The compilation produced by the learned APP contain an agreement on a 500 Rupees stamp paper executed between Mahesh Alim Chandani, Kishor Lalwani referrred to as facilitator on one hand and Gautam Jasnani, partner of Chinmay Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 10/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc Estate referred to as purchaser. This agreement is executed in the backdrop that the owners who were owning and possessing the agricultural land in Survey No.98 and village form no.7/12 reflect the name of the owners concerning the said property, facilitators have informed the purchasers that they can procure the said property with clear and marketable title and the purchasers have shown their willingness to acquire and purchase the same through the facilitator subject to the terms and conditions recorded. The agreement record that the facilitators have provided to the purchasers the relevant mutation entries, village form, revenue record, MOU dated 23/2/2013 executed between the owners and the facilitators for verification and after confirming the same, and after actually having inspection of the site, they have agreed to purchase the property from the original owners against the payment of full consideration. In consideration of the facilitator procuring the property for the purchasers, the purchasers agreed to pay consideration of Rs.14 crore, Rs.7 crore to Mahesh Alim Chandani, Rs.3 crore to Kishor Mandiani and Rs.3 crore to Kishor Lalwani. The facilitators agreed to receive and accept the same as full and final settlement of their claim as per MOU dated 23/2/2013. The facilitators undertake to complete the transaction within a period of 9 months and before completion of transaction, purchaser agreed to pay Rs.14 crores to them.
(e) Another document dated 22nd October, 2013 is a Deed of Assignment made and entered between Bombay Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 11/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc Mission Trust Superior through Mrs.Brigette Briganza and the complainant, Partner of Chinmay Estate. By the said document, the assigner has depicted to have assailed possessory rights, title, interest and physical possession in piece and portion of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 98, Taluka Maval, District Pune admeasuring 18.5 acres. The assignor has declared her to be in possession of the said land since 1960 without any interruption and disturbance from Smt.Bababai, Smt.Nirmala and Smt.Ranjana, whose names stand in the revenue record. She has represented that her name as Kabjedar has not been updated in the record of right and other revenue records as she had not paid the revenue nazrana. The assignee agreed to bear all expenses to be incurred in the Court of Law, office of the Collector or before Revenue Authorities for obtaining necessary permission and its conversion to non-agricultural land. The consideration fixed is Rs.1,15,00,000/- towards full and final settlement.
(f) The complainant has further alleged that accused Tulsi also asked him to arrange an amount for Mrs.Sharda Alimchandani (applicant), who was the agricultural tenant in the said property and, therefore, he parted with an amount of Rs.16,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- by RTGS. This amount, according to the complainant, is given to Mahesh Alimchandani.
(g) The complainant has further alleged that for the purposes of development of the property, Mahesh Alimchandani rendered his co-operation and he paid huge amounts approximating to Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 12/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc Rs.2,68,00,000/- to Mahesh Alimchandani for the said purpose. According to the complainant, as per the say of Tulsi, he and his father expended Rs.7,26,50,000/-, but he did not receive any benefit of the property in question. In 2017, it dawned that the said land was the Government land and one Landge family was a normal tenant and there was no possession on the subject land of any other person than the tenant. When attempts were made thereafter to obtain the amounts spent, Mahesh Alimchandani assured to return the amount and in fact, had also drawn a cheque on 26th February, 2019 for an amount of Rs.7,28,50,000/- and handed over a photostat copy of the same alongwith the copy of RTGS form by assuring that as soon as his deal would be finalised in respect of other property, he would return the amount.
Based on these allegations, C.R. has been registered wherein all the persons involved in the transaction, described by the complainant, were arraigned as an accused. Mahesh Alimchandani is impleaded as accused No.2. The applicant is named as accused No.4. Total 10 persons have been implicated as accused.
8. When the investigation was set into motion on the complaint filed, apart from these documents being collated during the course of inquiry, the statements of the original owners Ranjana, Smt.Nirmala - husband of Ranjana are recorded. The owners reveal that Gut No.98 was recorded as Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 13/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc 'kul' in the name of their grand father Sonu Annaji Landge. After his death, the land was cultivated by his sons Maruti, Baban, Rama and Sakharam. The yield was equally distributed amongst the four. Ranjana is daughter of Sakharam. She has stated that on 29th April 1993, her father expired. Thereafter, her elder uncle Maruti was cultivating the land. Ranjana got married to Ramesh Sathe on 5th May 2003. Her brother Ganesh also died on 31st October 2008. She has disclosed in her statement as to how she was persuaded to sign some documents dealing with her 1/4th share by removing the Government entry and transferring it in the name of her mother and sister. She has referred to the meeting with Mahesh Alim Chandani and for her share, she was assured an amount of Rs.Two crores. Then, she was taken to Mumbai and made to sign some documents. She acknowledged receipt of cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- and cash amount of Rs.One lakh. She has also stated that she had paid some amount to the brokers after the cheque was encashed. However, she make a grievance that the documents which she had signed had not been received by her nor was she thereafter contacted by any person. Nirmala's statement is also on the similar line.
Pertinent to note that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected the revenue record in respect of the subject land. The record reveals that vide Mutation Entry No.256 dated 15/02/1938, the name of Reverent Father E.R. Padri was removed and in his place, the name of Bombay Mission Superior S.J. Xavier College, Mumbai was recorded.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::
14/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc
Vide Entry No.351 dated 15th May, 1949, the name of Sonu Annaji Landge was recorded as protected tenant in terms of Section 3(a) of the Tenancy Act. On 5 th November 1955, vide mutation entry no.478, the Talathi removed the name of Sonu Annaji Landge on the ground of the land not being cultivated by him. On 25th January 1972, vide Mutation Entry No.827, the name of Social Welfare Centre, Pune was mutated by the Tahsildar on an application preferred by Bombay Mission Superior S.J. Xavier College, Bombay. Vide Mutation Entry No.928 dated 15th February 1980, Tahsildar Maval, vide his order dated 4th February 1980 directed the subject land to be shown as 'Sarkar Jama' and the name of the Government came to be entered in Land Record. Vide mutation entry No.3682 recorded on 27th September 2017, in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister in Appeal NO. RTS 3416/PN 53/J-5, the Appeal of Ramdas Suresh Landge was allowed and the earlier mutation entry no.478 and 928 were struck down. Resultantly, in the 7/12 extracts, the name of Sonu Annaji Landge and Social Welfare Centre has been restored. In terms of Section 32(9G) of the Tenancy Act, matter has been forwarded to the concerned Tahsildar.
9. The statement of Ramdas Suresh Landge has also been recorded on 23rd September 1990. Ramdas who has filed appeal before the Revenue Minister is the son of Rama. His grand- father Sonu Annaji has been described to be a 'kul'. He speak Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 15/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc about the different mutation entries and that on 4 th February 1980, by order of Tahsildar, the land in question stood in the name of State Government. He has stated that his cousin grand father Maruti Sonu Landge challenged the said order before Tahsildar and he prayed for inquiry under Section 17B and for restoration of tenancy. The said application was rejected by the Tahsildar on 7th May 2012. On 24th March 2015, Maruti Sonu Landge expired and therefore, Ramdas preferred an application to the Additional Collector, Pune for recording the name of the heirs in respect of the said property. His application came to be rejected and he approached the Hon'ble Minister, Revenue by filing proceedings. The proceedings came to be decided in his favour by order dated 17th April 2017, deleting the entries, removing the names of Sonu Annaji Landge. By the order passed by the Minister, mutation entry no. 3682, name of Sonu Annaji Landge has been re-introduced in the column of rights as protected tenant and social welfare centre, Pune is recorded as 'Kabjedar'. In his statement, he has admitted that Smt. Bababai Sakharam Landge is his cousin grand-mother and Nirmala and Ranjana are her daughters. He state that her son Ganesh had expired. He state that he is not in touch with the said family. In 2017, he had received call from Tulsi Jasnani whom he had a meeting, where inquiries were made with him about the said land. Ramdas also state that Sonu Annaji Landge had four sons and he has given the details of the heirs of Sonu Annaji and state that in the said property at Survey No.98, area 14.5 acres, there Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 16/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc are 18 legal heirs. However, name of the legal heirs are not mutated and the proceedings under 32(g) are not complete. After the decision of the Hon'ble Minsiter, he had preferred an application for mutating the name of all the legal heirs and the proceedings are going on.
10. From the entire material collected by the prosecution till date, it is apparent that the original owners who has signed the Memorandum of Understanding, firstly on 23rd February 2013 with Kishor Lalwani and Kishor Madnani and the second MOU signed on 5th October 2013 with the complainant were signed when the land in question was standing in the name of State Government. Though it can be very well seen that the Hon'ble Minister by order dated 17th April 2017 directed the land to be restored in the name of Sonu Anaji Landge, the agreement came to be executed by the owners depicting them to be the full owners of the said property with a covenant that in the 7/12 extract, the name of the original owners are mutated. The statement of Ramdas, however, make the position clear that Sonu Annaji Landge has 18 legal heirs and the three land owners who had executed the agreement, two Memorandum of Understanding could not have claimed the exclusive ownership of the property and were not competent to deal with the same.
11. As far as the applicant Ram Awasthi is concerned, he is reflected as a tenant in the agreement executed on 23 rd February Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 17/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc 2013 and 5th October 2013. The said agreement of agricultural tenancy is executed on 29th April 2000. By the said agreement, Ram Awasthi is inducted as a tenant. The learned APP raise a strong doubt about the said agreement and she point out that Ram Awasthi is a resident of Mumbai and it is surprising that he is inducted as an agricultural tenant being verse with agricultural activities and knowledge about farming. According to the learned APP, this agreement is fraudulent and Mr.Marwadi has also argued that it is executed back-dated. Mr.Ponda has traversed the submission of Shri Marwadi by advancing a legal submission that by amendment to Section 464 of IPC, with effect from 17th October 2000, the Section has undergone a change and making a document backdated is not more an offence. The said document, according to him, is executed in the year 2003 and therefore, it do not attract the offence under Section 464. Though I am not holding the said documents against Mr.Ponda, prima facie it can be very well discerned from the material collected during the course of investigation that the three women who executed this agreement had no right to deal with the land in question as they were not the exclusive owners, particularly on the day on which the agreement is alleged to have been executed and the applicant inducted as agricultural tenant and to be precise on 29th April 2000, the land was already standing in the name of the State Government. In the detailed statement of Smt.Ranjana and Smt. Nirmala as well as Ramesh Sathe, husband of Ranjana, they do not speak of the applicant being an Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 18/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc agricultural tenant in the said land. On the other hand, Nirmala and Ranjana state that all the four sons of Sonu were cultivating the land and sharing the yield. Nirmala and Ranjana both state that their parents would come to Khandala and look after the land. After the death of their father, they have stated that their cousin uncle Maruti was looking after the land and was taking the crop. Ranjana got married to Ramesh in the year 2003 and she was residing in old Khandala along with her family is the statement of Nirmala. Nirmala has categorically revealed that her brother Ganesh expired in 2008 and thereafter Ramesh Sathe was looking after the land but neither these two sisters nor Ramesh Sathe speak of the agricultural tenant. The applicant has received the amount of Rs.1,85,00,000/- as a price for his tenancy for relinquishing his rights. The allegations require a thorough custodial interrogation as it is of serious nature. The property which was dealt with by executing different agreements was standing in the name of Government at the time it was being dealt with and the complainant who hoodwinked by asking to make payments for settlement of the claims of those in possession of the land and the agricultural tenants.
12. Though learned Senior counsel Mr.Ponda would argue that after the order passed in Appeal, the possession is restored back to Sonu Annaji Landge as a tenant in the record of rights, the investigation reveal that the three owners who had executed the MoU with two different parties and the first party subsequently Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 19/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc acted as a facilitator in the agreement for development and received an amount of Rs.Fourteen crores towards facilitation without having the right to deal with the entire 14.5 acres of Survey No.98 and the statement of the owner is that they were under an impression that they were dealing with their share of land. This requires a thorough investigation and what would be the effect of the land being subsequently mutated in the original tenant's name and the effect of Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act where there is a power to rescind will have to be determined in the appropriate Court of Law. At present, the offence is registered under Section 406, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC. To unearth the modus operandi and the conspiracy as alleged, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much necessary. The applicant, in my considered opinion, therefore do not deserve any protection from arrest.
13. Application is rejected.
14. In view of the disposal of the application, interim application (St.) No.2538 of 2020 stands disposed of.
SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::