Bombay High Court
Muazzam Maqsood Bhaiji And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2022
Author: V. G. Bisht
Bench: V. G. Bisht
ABA-1742-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1742 OF 2021
Muazzam Maqsood Bhaiji and Anr. ... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Rizwan Merchant a/w Faisal F. Shaikh i/b Ms. Sanjana
Pardeshi, for the Applicants.
Smt. Anamika Malhotra, APP, for the State-Respondent No.1
Mr. Sandeep R. Karnik, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.
RESERVED ON : 10 th December, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th January, 2022.
PC:
The applicants are seeking Anticipatory Bail in connection
with C.R. No. 60 of 2021 registered with Kharghar Police Station,
Navi Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 The prosecution case in short is that, informant purchased
48.9 gunthas land in the name of Chinmay Associates from Survey
Rekha Patil 1/9
ABA-1742-2021.odt
No. 122 from the applicants vide agreement dated 20th July, 2015.
There were two agreements, one of 32 gunthas and another of 16.9
gunthas. According to prosecution, total amount of Rs. 18 crore
was paid to the applicants towards consideration.
3 The prosecution next contends that in the month of July,
2017 when informant was to raise bank loan for his oil business he
demanded all the original documents of the land in question from
the applicants. After going through the 7/12 extract he noticed the
name of applicants and not his company. Accordingly on being felt
cheated the informant lodged the report.
4 Mr. Merchant, learned Counsel for the applicants, has filed a
synopsis of arguments. Perused. Similarly learned APP has also
filed notes of submissions along with compilation. Perused. I have
also gone through the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No.2-
Intervenor and his synopsis of arguments. Besides, learned
Counsel for the parties and learned APP have also briefly advanced
submissions which is more or less in line with their synopsis.
Rekha Patil 2/9
ABA-1742-2021.odt
5 There is no dispute that the original owner of Survey No. 122
was Abdul Majid Mohd. Yusuf i.e. maternal uncle of the applicants.
The total area of Survey No. 122 was 6 acres 57 gunthas.
According to prosecution, 2 acres 24 gunthas i.e. 104 gunthas of
land was used in Mumbai-Pune Express Highway while 3 acres
was earmarked as gaothan land vide Government Order dated 12th
January, 2010. The remaining 1 acre i.e. about 43 gunthas land
was given to CIDCO. In lieu of 43 gunthas of land, CIDCO gave the
original owner another land as compensation situated at Kharghar
bearing Survey No. 57. According to prosecution, nothing had
remained in Survey No. 122 in view of above bifurcations. The
applicants allegedly secured NOC dated 1st March, 2007
purportedly issued by CIDCO and annexed the same along with
agreement entered into by them with the informant. Only on the
basis of that fabricated NOC an entry into 7/12 extract was also
taken.
6 According to learned Counsel for the applicant, prior to the
execution of conveyance deed in 2015, the applicants through the
Taluka Inspector of Land Record, Panvel carried out Survey of
Rekha Patil 3/9
ABA-1742-2021.odt
entire land bearing No. 122 after issuance of notice to CIDCO and
in presence of the Assistant Survey Officer, CIDCO, who did not
raise any written objection with the Surveying Officer. Thereafter,
applicants were approached by Vidhyabharati Enterprises, Property
Dealer/Advisor, who had taken upon himself the responsibility to
procure the NOC from CIDCO for facilitating the applicants to sell
the land Survey No. 122/1.
7 According to applicants, the NOC dated 1st March, 2007 was
got issued from CIDCO by Vidhyabharati Enterprises, Property
Dealer/Advisor and the applicants has no role to play in the
issuance there of. Even issuance of the said certificate from CIDCO
attributes doubtful reasons with regard to the originality of the said
NOC of CIDCO. Even till date the CIDCO had not been able to
identify the land purportedly acquired by them. Even otherwise,
the whole case of prosecution is based on documentary evidence.
There is no necessity of custodial interrogation. Hence, ad-interim
protection operating in favour of the applicants needs to be
confirmed, argued learned Counsel.
Rekha Patil 4/9
ABA-1742-2021.odt
8 I have gone through the compilations filed on record by the
parties. The main controversy revolves around NOC purportedly
issued by CIDCO and subsequent entry in the 7/12 extract based on
the said NOC issued by CIDCO. The NOC is document No. 10 of
the compilation of the learned APP and is dated 1 st March, 2007. It
is addressed to applicants and shows that as land of 0.38 hector R
with 0.1 R Po.Kha. could not be acquired till 23/09/1086, the
Notification regarding acquisition of the said stood elapsed and the
same has been excluded from the acquisition proceedings. It
further states that the original land owner is free to deal with the
said land as per his wish.
9 It is pertinent to note here that as per this NOC as the land in
question had not been acquired till 23/09/1986, the acquisition
had automatically elapsed. But the prosecution has also filed on
record possession receipt (dCts ikorh) which shows that 0.43 hector
R was duly handed over by the predecessor-in-title of the
applicants through the Circle Inspector, Metro No.3, Panvel in the
presence of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.3
Panvel on 16/09/1986. This possession receipt prima-facie falsifies
Rekha Patil 5/9
ABA-1742-2021.odt
the contents of NOC dated 1st March, 2007 wherein it has been
mentioned about elapsement of the notification as land was not
acquired till 23/09/1986.
10 There is one more reason. A letter written by vIij ftYgkf/kdkjh
rFkk] eq[; weh o Hkwekiu vf/kdkjh ¼ Hkwlaiknu ½] flMdks informing Assistant
Police Inspector, EOW, CBD Belapur, that their record doesn't show
of having issued any NOC to applicants in respect of Survey No.
122/1A. It is also pertinent to note here that only on the basis of
NOC, necessary entry came to be recorded in the record of 7/12
extract.
11 The applicants have also filed on record the 7/12 extract
which shows that the land admeasuring 1.61.10 hector R standing
in the name of CIDCO has been excluded from the acquisition
proceedings.
12 During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the
applicants vehemently submitted that 7/12 extract pertaining to
the lands have been taken from the website of the concerned
Rekha Patil 6/9
ABA-1742-2021.odt
department which shows the date as 22/08/2020 and therefore, it
can not be said that these documents are forged by none other than
the applicants themselves. However, I have already pointed out
letter written by Additional Collector on 05/03/2021 i.e. much
after the issuance of 7/12 extract that no such NOC was ever given
to the applicants. However, it still remains a mystery as to how
despite there being categorical stand of prosecution that no NOC
filed on record by the applicants came to be issued, the 7/12
extract, although issued online, shows otherwise. Something
appears to be amiss while maintaining the records.
13 However, the fact remains that as on the date of entering into
agreement with informant by the applicants they had no land for
transaction inasmuch as everything had gone in acquisition.
Almost there was transaction of Rs. 14 crores. The applicants
cannot shirk their responsibility by saying that NOC was got
issued from CIDCO by Vidhyabharati Enterprises, Property Dealer/
Advisor inasmuch as they were knowing that the land in question
was well acquired during the life time of their predecessor-in-title.
There appears to be serious ramifications monetarily and also
Rekha Patil 7/9
ABA-1742-2021.odt
otherwise, having regard to the facts and circumstances which
needs to be thoroughly investigated.
14 It seems from the record that Vice President and Managing
Director of CIDCO vide letter dated 27/04/2012 addressed to
Collector, Raigad raised serious concern about the transaction being
carried out on the basis of false NOCs and pointed out that the
authorities from the CIDCO has not given any right to any officer, a
right of Government, to exclude the land already acquired to any
officers from the CIDCO. Even if any NOC is given the same is
absolutely illegal and beyond the purview of the powers of the
officers. Even it is requested by the Collector to take necessary
steps in that direction and review all the matters pertaining to the
so called NOCs and shall not effect any change in the revenue
record on the basis of any such NOCs.
15 For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the applicants have not
been able to make out a case for anticipatory bail. Hence, the
following order.
Rekha Patil 8/9
ABA-1742-2021.odt
ORDER
i) Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.
ii) Ad-interim relief granted earlier to stand vacated.
iii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(V. G. BISHT, J.) REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2022.01.20 14:41:58 +0530 Rekha Patil 9/9