Madras High Court
V.Ganesh vs State Represented By on 18 July, 2023
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.OP.No.22871 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.22871 of 2022
and
Crl.MP.Nos.14673 and 14675 of 2022
V.Ganesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Salem. ... Respondent
(V&AC Cr.No.11/AC/2020
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the entire records and quash the criminal proceedings in
Spl.CC.No.03/2022 pending on the file of Special Court for Trial of Cases
unde the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.22871 of 2022
ORDER
This petition is filed by the second accused against whom the prosecution has filed a final report alleging that he entered into conspiracy with the first accused, a private individual, owner of the property situated at Plot Nos.29 and 31 of Jayam Nagar, Valapady and pursuant to conspiracy, he had regularized the unapproved plot suppressing the fact that there is a building in existence and also he has granted planning approval for the said building on the application of A1 suppressing the existence of building. The final report indicates that in anticipation of undue advantage, this petitioner has granted approval for the plots as well as approved the building plan which according to the prosecution is in violation of G.O.(Ms).No.78 Housing and Urban Development dated 04.05.2017.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Executive Officer of Valapady Selection Grade Panchayat, Salem District. Plot Nos.29 and 31 of Jayam Nagar is part of larger unapproved layout. The first accused Arunachalam purchased these two plots on 09.06.2016 and thereafter G.O.(Ms).No.78 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 04.05.2017 was issued, he sought for 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.22871 of 2022 regularization of the unapproved plots. The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem Zone, considering his application and few others applications had instructed the second respondent vide proceedings dated 27.09.2018 to collect fee prescribed and issue regularization order. Accordingly, the petitioner herein on 12.10.2018 regularized the plot bearing numbers 29 and 31. Thereafter, the first accused submitted building plan application on 17.10.2018, the same was approved by this petitioner on 28.10.2019. Neither G.O.(Ms).No.78 Housing and Urban Building dated 04.05.2017 prohibits granting building approval for the existing building constructed on a unapproved lay out nor the said allegation is true.
3. The first accused M.Arunachalam purchased the property on 09.06.2016 and his title deed indicates that it is a vacant plot. On his application the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, after following the procedure had issued proceedings to collect fees prescribed and grant approval. Similar order passed by by Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning for more than 20 plots. The plots of Arunachalam is among them. Having exercised his duty as per the procedure, imaginery allegations have been made against him and final report has been filed, 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.22871 of 2022 which is totally contrary to the FIR registered based on the complaint given by one Karthikeyan. While the FIR was on the premise that the property registered as a vacant site on 09.06.2016 was not a vacant site at all and the Sub Registrar Office on extraneous consideration registered the property as a vacant site found false in the course of invesigation. When the foundation of the charge found not true as alleged in the FIR, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted, particularly, when the Sub Registrar and others were not arrayed as accused in the final report.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the document dated 09.06.2016 executed in favour of the first accused showing the property as vacant site was found to be false declaration and therefore field inspection was conducted and proceedings under Section 47A of the Stamp Act was initiated against the first accused. About Rs.2,63,318/- was collected as penalty and additional Stamp Duty. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that there is no foundation for the case against the petitioner.
5. This Court on perusing the proceedings of the Sub Registrar, Valapadi dated 07.06.2021 find that the proceedings initiated under Sections 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.22871 of 2022 27 and 67 of the Stamp Act dated 07.06.2021 is pursuant to the field inspection conducted on 10.08.2019. This is passed two years after regularization order passed by the petitioner herein. As pointed out earlier, the approval of unauthorized plots was made by the petitioner herein, pursuant to the direction of Additional Director of Town and Country Planning. The order of regularizing the unapproval plot is dated 12.10.2018. Thereafter the order for building plan issued on 29.10.2018.
6. On perusing the G.O.(Ms).No.78 as well as the Municipality Act, Panchayat Act and District Municipalities Act, there is no bar for granting approval of a existing building which has been constructed on plot which has been regularized, subsequently, by virtue of G.O.(Ms).No.78. Even assuming that the allegation against the petitioner as found in the final report to be considered as true and he has granted approval for a building already constructed, no where, under the Act or Rule such post ratification approval been prescribed. As far as regularization of plots as pointed out by the petitioner, the petitioner has issued regularization order pursuant to the proceedings of Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem Zone. While the prosecution has thought fit that the Sub Registrar whom 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.22871 of 2022 they claim that he has registered the property with building, suppressing the existence of the building and the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning issued proceedings to regularize the plot are not made as accused, this petitioner has not done any thing other than relying upon the content of the document and the proceedings of Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning had granted permission for which, the ingredient of Section 120B read with 177 and 109 r/w 167 IPC and 12 r/w 7(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act will not get attracted.
7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The final report pending on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption, Salem in Spl.CC.No.03 of 2022 is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
18.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Vv 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.22871 of 2022 To
1. The Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem
2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.22871 of 2022 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.22871 of 2022 and Crl.MP.Nos.14673 and 14675 of 2022 18.07.2023 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis