Uttarakhand High Court
Ramesh Chandra Karnatak vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 29 November, 2012
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 1136/2012
Ramesh Chandra Karnatak .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Another ......Respondents
29th November, 2012
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. RS Sammal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. KS Rautela, AGA, for the State.
Heard.
Also perused the papers on record.
It appears that on 25.10.1990, complainant/respondent no. 2 Rajendra Singh Walia allegedly purchased two plots in Haldwani, each admeasuring 1800 sq. ft., in the name of his wife Smt. Angela Walia and son Victor Walia respectively. The ostensible and legal owners, both were foreign nationals i.e. citizens of Germany. This property was purchased from the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Karnatak, who was running a private company in the name and style of M/s Haldwani Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. and he was the director of this company.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the provisions contained under Section 154(A) of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the plots, in question, could not have been purchased either by the complainant or his wife or son without securing prior permission of the State Government. This provision hampered the mutation process, and the names of the purchaser could not be mutated in the revenue records.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that divorce has taken place between the 2 complainant Rajendra Singh Walia and Smt. Angela Walia in the year 1995. As such, the present complainant, who is not the real owner of the said plots, has no locus to lodge the impugned FIR.
Learned Counsel further submitted that after three years of divorce, Smt. Angela Walia made a communiqué to the petitioner, Director of the said company dealing in sale and purchase of land, instructing him to sell those two plots further. So, in compliance of this telephonic instruction, the petitioner sold these plots to one Mr. Jagdish Chandra Pandey, who has constructed his house over the said plots and is living there.
Almost after 14 years of the said transaction, when Rajendra Singh Walia visited Haldwani and subsequently came to know that these plots were in the occupation of Mr. Pandey, then he lodged the impugned FIR.
Admit the petition.
Issue notice to respondent no. 2 calling his counter affidavit.
List in due course.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and without making any comment upon its merit, it is directed that the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Karnatak shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No. 454/2012 dated 11.11.2012, under Section 420 IPC, PS Haldwani, District Nainital provided he cooperates with the investigating agency.
Stay application (CLMA 12748/2012) stands disposed of.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 29.11.2012 Prabodh