Delhi District Court
State vs . G.C.Sharma & Others 1/166 on 17 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANAGWAL
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)-05 (ACB), CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, Delhi
FIR No.04/2001
PS Anti Corruption Branch
U/s 13(1)(d) POC Act R/W section 120-B IPC
Case No.532245/2016
State V.
1. G.C. Sharma (A1)
son of late Sh. Sama Chand Sharma
R/o 528, Nimri Colony,
PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052
2. Ishwar Singh (A2)
son of Sh. Ram Singh
R/o K-62, Roshan Pura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-43.
3. Suresh Chandra
son of late Sh. Nand Lal
R/o D-5/55 Sector-15,
Rohini, Delhi.
4. Lalit Kumar Rana (A4)
son of Sh. Prem Singh Rana,
R/o Vill. Nizampur,
PO Kundal, Distt. Sonipat,
Haryana.
5. Daya Nand Saroha (A5)
son of Sh. Namu Ram,
R/o Holambi Khurd,
Narela Industrial Area, Delhi.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 1/166
6. Dharma Nand (A6)
Son of late Sh. Narottam
R/o 177, New Jiwan Nagar,
PS Sadar, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana.
7. Vinod Kumar Pandey
son of Sh. Rajender Kumar Pandey,
R/o 172, Kalyanwas, Delhi Administration
Flats, Delhi-92.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 16.11.2018
JUDGMENT ANNOUNCED ON: 17.11.2018
CNR NO. DLCT01-000125-2005
JUDGMENT
1.) As per factual matrix of this case, in June 1998 Sh. Bhure Lal, Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission filed a complaint against G.C. Sharma, Consolidation Officer of village Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla. Again another complaint dated 14.8.98 against G.C. Sharma was received from one Sardar Singh. Inquiry of both the complaint was marked to Inspector A.K. Sexena on the basis of his inquiry direction was given by ACB to register a formal FIR against G.C. Sharma on 15.12.2000.
2). In this case notification U/s 14(1) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 (herein after referred to as State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 2/166 Act) was issued on 5.9.1988 for village Pooth Khurd and on 10.9.93 in respect of village Kanjhawla. The rules of consolidation were notified on 12.6.1996. The preliminary work of consolidation was started in the year 1995. The advisory committee was constituted on 11.9.96 for village Pooth Khurd and on 6.7.96 for village Kanjhawla. G.C. Sharma was appointed as Consolidation Officer on 3.6.96 in respect of both the villages.
3). Once a notice U/s 14(1) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948, is issued the owner of land are divested of their rights over the land and consolidation officer assumes all the powers. After the notification, no sale/transfer of land/partition of any kind is permissible in respect of land which is the subject matter of such notification.
The draft scheme of consolidation of village Kanjhawla u/s 19 was announced by accused G.C. Sharma, Consolidation Officer on 23.2.98. 30 days time in accordance with section 19 of the Act was given to file any objections. Thereafter, the expiry of 30 days period scheme was confirmed U/s 20 of the Act on 24.4.97.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 3/166 The draft scheme of consolidation of village Pooth Khurd u/s 19 was announced by accused G.C. Sharma, Consolidation Officer on 23.2.98. 30 days time in accordance with section 20 of the Act was given to file any objections. Thereafter, after the expiry of 30 days period scheme was confirmed U/s 20 of the Act on 18.5.98.
4.) After confirmation of the scheme, repartition was required to be carried out in accordance with confirmed scheme u/s 20 and boundaries of the holdings were to be demarcated. Accordingly, re- partition U/s 21 (1) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 was done under the supervision of G.C.Sharma, Consolidation Officer between 5.5.98 to 29.5.98 in respect of village Kanjhawla and between 18.3.99 to 5.9.99 in respect of village Pooth Khurd under the supervision of Ishwar Singh, Consolidation Officer.
5). There was an office order dated 29.8.1990(Ex.PW40/A) from the office of Dy. Commissioner, Delhi which bars the transfer of agriculture land U/s 30 Indian Registration Act, in Delhi by obtaining registered sale deed from the metropolitan cities other than Delhi. This circular also bars the mutation on the basis of such transfer.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 4/166
6.) Similarly, Sh.X.K. Mehto who was posted as ADM(Revenue), on 3.10.1996, issued a circular Ex. (PW14/A) which prohibits the mutation on the basis of document registered outside Delhi if the claimant is not a resident of presidency town, where the document was registered. The circular was circulated among the concerned officers.
7). On 2.4.1998 a meeting was taken place in the office of Chief Minister Delhi with respect to consolidation of village Kanjhawla. Accused G.C. Sharma had also participated in the same. Some directions were passed with respect to the allotment of land under the consolidation.
8.) During the consolidation proceedings accused persons were posted in their different capacity in the revenue estate of Poothkhurd and Kanjhawla.
G.C. Sharma was posted as Tehsildar and Consolidation Officer of both the villages w.e.f. 13.6.96 to 31.8.98 .
Ishwar Singh was posted w.e.f. 1.9.98 to 25.6.99 as consolidation Officer of Pooth Khurd.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 5/166 Dharmanand was posted as Patwari of village Pooth Khurd.
V.K. Pandey was posted as Patwari of village Kanjhawla.
Suresh Chandra was posted as Asstt. Consolidation Officer and Naib Tehsildar of village Kanjhawla and Poot khurd Lalit Kumar Rana was posted as patwari of village Pooth Khurd.
Dayanand Saroha was posted as Patwari of village Pooth Khurd.
9). It has been alleged against accused G.C. Sharma, Ishwar Singh, Suresh Chandra, Lalit Kumar Rana, Daya Nand Saroha, Dharmanand, Vinod Kumar Pandey that all of them in furtherance of criminal conspiracy while posted in the revenue department of village Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla abused their official position to extend benefit of consolidation to unauthorized persons and committed the offence by violating the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948,violating the office order Ex.PW40/A,violating State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 6/166 the circular Ex.PW14/A and meeting directions dated 2.4.1998 (Ex.PW15/A) in following manner:-
9.1) In order to commit the offence they had accepted huge amount as bribe from the beneficiaries.
9.2) 50 and 38 Sales deeds were got executed by land owner for village Kanjhawla and Pooth Khurd respectively in Sub Registrar office Mumbai after confirmation of the consolidation scheme in order to escape the inconvenience of obtaining an NOC from Tehsildar for registration of property under consolidation in Delhi.
On the basis of those sale deeds mutation of land of Kanjhawla was allowed by G.C. Sharma Tehsildar in connivance with Patwaris Vinod Kumar Pandey, Suresh Chand. ACO, Ishwar Singh, CO and violated the administrative order dated 29.8.90(Ex.PW40/A), 30.10.96 (Ex.PW14/A) and meeting directions dated 2.4.1998 (Ex.PW15/A) On the basis of those sale deeds mutation of land of Pooth Khurd was allowed by G.C. Sharma Tehsildar in connivance with patwaris Dayanand Saroha, Dharmanand, Lalit Kumar Rana. Assistant State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 7/166 Consolidation Officer(ACO) Suresh Chand and Ishwar Singh, Consolidation Officer also connived with. They have violated the administrative order dated 29.8.90(Ex.PW40/A), 30.10.96 (Ex.PW14/A) and meeting directions dated 2.4.1998 (Ex.PW15/A) 9.3) New Right holders were created by allowing mutation in the cases of sale deeds registered after the due date. Accused persons entered their name in Karwai register in back date so that those beneficiaries to became right holders by way of sale deed and mutation after 24.7.96 for village Kanjhawla and after 18.5.98 for village Pooth Khurd whereas right holders were not right holders on the date of mutation and were not to be entertained.
9.4) Despite the fact that consolidation scheme was confirmed on 24.4.97 for village Kanjhawla and on 18.5.98 for village Poothkhurd, accused persons carried out repartition U/s 21 w.e.f. 5.5.98 to 29.5.98 for village Kanjhawla and w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.5.99 for village Pooth Khurd in utter violation of Provision of Section 20 and 21 of the Act. On the basis of these mutation they allotted lands to those persons who were not the beneficiary in the consolidation scheme. Accused G.C. Sharma being the Consolidation Officer accepted the applications for demand for residential State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 8/166 and industrial plots and increased the number of right holders and subsequently allotted the residential and industrial plots to such right holders without getting the confirmed scheme changed from the competent authority, in violation of section 36 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948.
9.5) Accused persons even allotted plots to the minors who were not authorized for allotment of plots otherwise also.
9.6) In village Pooth Khurd, residential/industrial plots were allotted to the person who had already expired. Name of such persons were Smt. Chander, Sh. Dharampal, and Sh. Mahipal.
9.7) Some allotment were also done in violation of notification which stipulates the allotment of plots to bonafide residents in the village for a period of 20 years.
9.8) Accused G.C. Sharma had violated the decision of chief Minister Delhi taken in the meeting on 2.4.1998 where it was clarified that the plot would be allotted to persons who were right holders before notification and no plots will be allotted to such State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 9/166 increased new right holders.
9.9) Similarly G.C. Sharma- CO Suresh Chand ACO, Vinod Pandey, Patwari provided a 100 ft. wide road unauthorizedly, violating the confirmed scheme of village Kanjhawla in order to benefit the individuals who were allotted plots on the side of the proposed road as a result 45 persons have been benefited.
9.10) Accused persons however did not sanction any farm house but they manipulated/facilitated the allotment of plots to the other members of the same family and their relatives collectively at the site of 4 farm houses and ensured that the identity/existence of farm house were not disturbed.
Similarly, accused Ishwar Singh Suresh Chandra, Dalip Kumar Rana, for the village Pooth Khurd also manipulated/facilitated the allotment of plots to other members of same family and their relatives collectively at the site of 3 farm houses in a way that identity/existence of farm was not disturbed.
9.11) In fact land measuring 945 bighas 17 biswas was allotted to rural Development Department for setting up growth Centre at village State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 10/166 Kanjhawla, it was not a subject matter of consolidation as the same already been physically handed over to rural development department and the same was recorded in confirmed consolidation scheme. Therefore, land of growth centre was outside the scope and ambit of consolidation of village kanjhawla. Moreover, this land was already inaugurated by President of India.
As per consolidation scheme, growth centre should have been allotted double the land of its holding if it was shifted outside the extended Lal Dora, but this was not done in this case. What accused persons has done, they arbitrarily and illegally exchanged the land of growth centre by shifting the land earmarked for growth centre into agricultural land due to which the farm house of Balbir Singh and one Ved Prakash existing in the agricultural land was affected. Both these persons wee demanded a bribe of Rs.20 lacs and Rs.10 lcas respectively to retain their farm house. On the result of their refusal the farm houses were taken into growth centre.
Thereby, accused persons have caused loss of Rs.1,73,75,071/- to the government exchequer.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 11/166
10). Charge was framed on 3.7.1998 in terms of order dated 22.5.09 against accused G.C. Sharma, Ishwar Singh, Lalit Kumar Rana, Daya Nand and Dharmanand for the commission of offence qua village Pooth Khurd. Thereafter vide order dated 19.9.2018 charge was amended and amended charge was framed against accused Suresh Chandra qua village Pooth Khurd.
11). Charge was framed on 3.7.1998 in terms of order dated 22.5.09 against accused G.C. Sharma, Suresh Chand and Vinod Kumar Pandey qua village Kanjhawla.
12). Charge was framed against all the accused persons qua village Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla for the commission of offence punishable U/s 120B IPC readwith section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and substantive offence U/s 13(1)(d) readwith section 120B IPC.
13. On the basis of offence alleged and charge framed against the accused persons the prosecution is required to prove the following:-
13.(i) Whether the offence was committed during the period 3.6.96 to June 1998.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 12/166
13.(ii). Whether accused G.C. Sharma was working as Consolidation Officer of village Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla.
13.(iii) Whether accused Ishwar Singh was also working as Consolidation Officer of village Pooth Khurd during this period.
13.(iv) Whether accused Lalit Kumar Rana, Dayanand Saroha and Dharmanand were working as Patwari of village PoothKhurd. Kanjhawla
13.(v) Whether accused Vinod Kumar Pandey was working as Patwari at village Kanjhawla.
13.(vi) Whether Suresh Chand was working as Assistant Consolidation Officer of village Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla.
13.(vii) Whether accused persons have committed the offence as mentioned in para No.9.
13.(viii). Whether criminal conspiracy was hatched amongst the accused persons to commit the offence as mentioned in para No.9.
13.(ix) Whether accused persons in pursuance to
the criminal conspiracy committed
criminal misconduct and, :-
a) abused their official position as public
servant or by corrupt or illegal
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 13/166
means; Obtained for himself or for beneficiary valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest by performing illegal acts;
b) while holding office as a public servant, obtained valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for any person without public interest
14.) On behalf of the prosecution, in order to prove the charges against the accused persons as many as 71 witnesses have been examined.
Order of charge was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by accused Suresh Chandra and vide order dated 16.10.2018 Hon'ble High Court has directed to recall witnesses for cross-examination PW13, PW14, PW15, PW18, PW20, PW22, PW31, PW32, PW33, PW37, PW38, PW47, PW61, PW70 and PW71.
The deposition of the important witnesses in short have been reproduced here under :-
15.1 PW3 Sh. A.K. Sexena Assistant Commissioner MCD:- He deposed that IO personally visited him and requested the supply of State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 14/166 Chakbandi record of village Puth Khurd, which was duly handed over vide letter Ex. PW3/A. 15.2 PW4 Sh. Suraj Singh:- He deposed that accused G.C. Sharma came to village Kanjhawla and informed about consolidation. He constituted an Advisory Committee of the village people and informed that person who wanted to get allotment of residential or factory plots could apply within one month from that day. He continued to receive application for allotment of plots even after expiry of one month. He in connivance of the member of advisory committee got illegal registries effected regarding transfer/sale of land at Bombay. He named one Jagdish and Satya Devi such persons the value of whose land were increased by G.C. Sharma to bring the same in Lal Dora on the payment of consideration. He further deposed that Satya Devi in connivance with accused G.C. Sharma being the Consolidation Officer and accused Vinod Pandey being the Patwari got the said land mutated to get plots.
PW4 went to accused G.C. Sharma for getting his sale deed registered at Bombay, on inquiry from him as to the sum of money required to be spent, he sent him to meet accused Vinod Kumar Pandey. Vinod State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 15/166 Kumar Pandey told him that since he had met accused G.C. Sharma his work would be done. He also talked about one and a half lacs and asked him to give payment to any of the person namely Ranvir Singh, Satish Bhardwaj, Jagjit Singh, Bhagwan Singh or Devender Singh.
15.3. PW5 Sh. Rajesh Dabas:- He is the joint owner of 58 bigah of land. Some proceedings in the court of accused G.C. Sharma was going on regarding the said land. After 4-5 adjournments during the court proceedings accused G.C. Sharma told PW5 that if he did not pay Rs.30,000/- to him he would include entire 12 bighas and 8 biswas of land to gram sabha out of his own share. PW5 did not make the payment as a result of which accused G.C. Sharma included 12 bighas and 8 biswa of land in gram sabha out of his own share. He further deposed that on 5.11.2001 an order was passed by SDM divesting his land from gram sabha by vesting the same to him. PW5 contacted R.S. Rana to mutate his land in his name, he informed that this land had already been allotted in the name of Bharat Singh son of Jai Singh on 22.6.98.
15.4. PW6 Sh. Sukhbir Singh:- He denied that any bribe was demanded by any government official State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 16/166 with respect to consolidation proceedings. In cross- examination by Ld. APP he admitted that he told to the police that mutation work was done by accused G.C. Sharma after accepting the money. He further admits that he told the police that G.C. Sharma did this work in connivance with the then Kanungo, patwaris and ACOs.
15.5. PW7 Sh. Ved Prakash son of Sh. Amar Singh:- His farm house was converted into growth centre. He denied the demand of bribe from him but he stated that one patwari by the name of Pandey demanded money from his brother. In his cross- examination by the ld. APP he admitted that the name of that patwari was Vinod Kumar Pandey. He identified him in the court but denied the suggestion that Vinod Kumar Pandey demanded bribe from him. His statement was proved by the IO as Ex. PW71/T 15.6. PW8 Sh. Mehar Singh:- He was the land owner of 22 bigha 6 biswas in village Kanjhawla. He got the sale deed registered at Bombay in respect of his wife Om Devi and his son namely Ajay, Arvind, Akshay and Arun in favour of Satish Bhardwaj. He denied any demand of bribe from G.C.Sharma. He got 5 plots after consolidation of land.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 17/166 15.7. PW10 Balbir Singh:- He stated that he brought farm house sanction from MCD in the name of his son and he met Vinod Kumar Pandey who was posted as Patwari and requested him to keep his farm house away from consolidation proceedings that is to keep these farm houses "in kayam". But his farm houses were included in consolidation proceedings. One day Vinod Pandey came to his house and informed him that his farm houses will be used for growth centre since his land is very costly therefore, he need to spend some money then he can help him out. He demanded Rs.20 lacs as bribe i.e. Rs.10 lacs for each farm house.
15.8 PW13 Sh.S.R.Kataria, Joint Commissioner, Trade and Tax Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi :- In July 2002, he was posted as ADM North West, on the request of ACB he prepared service bio-data of accused Daya Nand Saroha as Ex.PW13/A; Dharmand as Ex. PW13/C, which were sent to ACB vide letter Ex. PW13/D. He also sent sanction order of accused Dharmanand as Ex. PW13/E and Dayanand Saroha as Ex. PW13/F to ACB. He also sent letter to DCP to ACB as Ex. PW13/G. 15.9 PW14 Sh. X.K. Mehto, CMD, Delhi State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 18/166 Financial Corporation, Janak Puri, Delhi:- In the year 1996 he was posted as ADM(Revenue), on 3.10.1996, he issued a circular Ex. PW14/A about prohibiting mutation on the basis of documents registered outside Delhi if the claimant is not a resident of presidency town, where the document was registered. The circular was circulated among the concerned officers.
15.10 PW15 Dr. B.M. Jain, Dy.
Secretary(Home), Govt. of NCT, Delhi:- In the year 1998 he was posted as PS to Chief Minister, Delhi. A meeting had taken place with regard to consolidation in the area Kanjhawla on 2.4.1998. Copy of minutes of meetings was also sent to accused G.C. Sharma. Copy of minutes of meeting is Ex. PW15/A which bears his signatures at point A and A1, the signature of G.C. Sharma is at point B. Copy of note sheet dated 3.4.1998 is Ex. PW15/B. This document is about direction regarding consolidation in Kanjhawla.
15.11 PW16 Sh. Sardar Singh:- He stated that one Satish Kumar approached him with a demand of Rs.80,000/- for sale deed and to get mutation. He applied in the office of CO to obtain the copy of consolidation scheme but same was denied, State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 19/166 thereafter he got the same by the order of Hon'ble High court. He filed complaint with CBI which is Ex. PW16/A. In cross -examination by Ld. APP he further deposed that he stated in his statement that when he met accused G.C. Sharma and accused Vinod Kumar Pandey they told him that for obtaining benefit and desired plot, one has to spend money.
15.12 PW18 Sh. M.P. Sharma :- In June 2002 he was posted as SDM Head Quarters. IO contacted him to understand the process of consolidation. He told him that U/s 14(1) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 a notification is issued by the government. Thereafter consolidation officer is appointed. Assistant Consolidation Officer, Kanungo and Patwari assist him to carry out the consolidation proceedings.
15.13 PW19 Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta:- He deposed that he do not know when consolidation proceedings were initiated. He told that he sold his portion of land to 6-7 persons. He got sale deed registered in Mumbai. The sale deed were not got registered in Delhi due to NOC.
15.14 PW20 Sh. Ashok Kumar Sexena, ACP(Retd.):- In 1998 he was posted as Inspector, State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 20/166 ACB. He was marked inquiry of two complaints against G.C. Sharma regarding consolidation proceedings in village Kanjhawla and village Poothkhurd vide Ex. PW20/A from the Vigilance Department. He prepared the report Ex. PW20/B. Consolidation report has been proved as Ex. PW20/C in his testimony.
He stated that during consolidation scheme, accused G.C. Sharma extended Lal Dora on particular side without taking mandatory permission from his senior i.e. ADM of Land Revenue Department. Similarly he made new 100 ft. road besides existing road and extended Phirny and also did new plotting and allotment of land without seeking mandatory permission from his seniors i.e. DC and Assistant Divisional Magistrate of Land Revenue Department. Further alleged that accused G.C. Sharma had done so to extend undue benefit to certain persons including them within the extended Phirni. Number of mutation were done by G.C. Sharma after the announcement of consolidation scheme.
He further deposed that during the course of inquiry, he gone through all the relevant documents.
15.15 PW-21 Sh. Hari Om, Patwari State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 21/166 District South West:- On 15.06.2005 he was posted as patwari in village kanjhawala. On that day, he filed status report of khasra of village Kanjhawala Ex.PW-21/A. (Ex.PW-21/A is the Chakbandi record of village kanjhawala bearing the khasra numbers ) 15.16 PW-22 Sh. Satish Kumar Yadav Patwari:- On 15.05.2005, he was posted as Patwari of village Pooth khurd and prepared the status report vide Ex.PW-22/A (Ex.PW-22/A bears the khasra numbers, name of the owner / possessor ) 15.17 PW-23 Sh.Khushi Ram Kanoongo:- On 15.06.2005 he was posted as Kanoongo in the office of SDM Kanjhawala. He also signed the status report Ex.PW-21/A which was prepared by PW-21.
15.18 PW-27 Sh. Swaroop Lal Meena:-
He forwarded the list of farm houses situated in village Kanjhawala and Pooth Khurd to IO vide Ex.PW- 27/A vide covering letter Ex.PW-27/B. 15.19 PW-28 Sh. A.C.Verma, Registrar, State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 22/166 Co-operative Societies:- In June 2004, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, West and granted sanction for the prosecution of accused Lalit Kumar Rana vide Ex.PW-28/A. 15.20 PW-29 Sh.Raj Singh UDC, Department of Education:- In the year 2005, he was posted as LDC in the office of DC Kanjhawala.
Documents Ex.PW-29/A and Ex.PW29/B received in the office vide entry dated 22.10.98 and 03.09.98 respectively.
(Ex. PW-29/A is the order of duty of Ishwar Singh, who worked as Tehsildar/C.O. pertain to consolidation work from his office in Deputy Commissioner (NW) office complex at Kanjhawala. The order is dated 22.10.1998).
(Ex.PW-29/B is the order dated 01.09.1998 noting of nominating the officer to function as settlement officer and consolidation officer. The order pertains to Ishwar Singh for village Pooth Khurd).
15.21 PW-31:- Sh. Janab Ahmed, Kanoongo, DC Office. On 10.05.2001, he was posted as Patwari in the office of Kanjhawala. He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW-31/A regarding State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 23/166 handing over of letter of Sh.P.K.Gupta, Tehsildar/C.O. this letter is mark PW-31/1 (Ex.PW-50/R) (and the same is regarding the mutation order alongwith the copies of sale deed, revenue state of Village Pooth Khurd).
This letter was handed over alongwith the photocopies mark PW-31/2 (this document is report of patwari for mutation in village Pooth Khurd).
15.22 PW-33 Sh. S. Raghunathan, Ex chief Secretary:- In the year 2004, he was working as Chief Secretary. He accorded sanction for prosecution of the Ishwar Singh, the then consolidation officer of village Kanjhawala and village Pooth khurd. He also accorded sanction for prosecution of Suresh Chand who was working as Asstt. Consolidation officer of village Kanjhawala and village Pooth khurd. The sanction for prosecution against accused Ishwar Singh is Ex.PW-33/A and against accused Suresh Chandra is Ex.PW-33/B respectively.
15.23 PW-34 Sh.Mahender Singh:- He was the resident of village Kanjhawala and was made the member of village Advisory committee in 2002 for the purpose of chakbandi. He was allotted one State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 24/166 plot in Chakbandi, the same was got registered at Bombay. His statement was proved by the IO as Ex. PW71/W. 15.24 PW37 Sh. Narayan Singh:- He was member of Advisory Committee of village Pooth Khurd in consolidation proceedings. He deposed that:- a) the consolidation scheme was finalized by G.C. Sharma without taking him in confidence. b) Applications were entertained much after the last date of giving option for allotment of plots. c) Ishwar Singh came at later stage and entire procedure was finalized through his tenure. d) Ishwar Singh asked him to sign allotment document but he refused. e) All the members of advisory committee tender their resignation as they were not taken into confidence by consolidation officer with respect to the consolidation. f) admitted that sale deeds were got registered at Mumbai after due dates and mutation was carried out in the office of consolidation officer.
g) Dalip Kumar Rana, Patwari Ishwar singh Consolidation officer, Suresh Chand ACO took over and acted arbitrarily to confirm the scheme of allotment after the transfer of G,C. Sharma and Dayanad Saroha.
15.25 PW38 Sh. Raghubir Singh:- He State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 25/166 was the member of the advisory committee being an ex-serviceman. He stated that it was decided by the committee that a plot measuring about 2100 yards would be allotted for residential and the plot measuring 300 yards would be allotted for industrial purposes per unit. It was also decided that against the allotment of plots measuring 300 yards, double the area would be retained from the village 'abadi' by consolidation officer. (this part was confronted by defence counsel with the 161 CrPC statement of the witness where it was not so recorded) He admitted that he stated in his statement that after registration of sale deeds of certain plots in Bombay, mutation of said plots were done by patwari Dayananad Saroha, CO G.C. Sharma and Girdawar and others. He cannot say who were benefited and who were put to loss by allotment of plots on the basis of registered sale deeds. He denied that he stated to the police that allotments had not been carried out in accordance with the confirmed consolidation proceedings. He stated that he got a sale deed registered in the name of his son Surender Singh and got an industrial plot allotted in pursuance of the same. These allotments were made by the then consolidation officer Ishwar Singh and Patwari Lalit Kumar. He admitted that he resigned from advisory committee under protest as the work had not been executed as per the confirmed State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 26/166 consolidation proceedings. He does not know the person who got the sale deed registered at Bombay and got the mutation done on the basis of sale deed. Witness admitted that he also got allotment of industrial plot as well as residential plot for his son but he never paid any bribe for those allotments.
15.26 PW40 Sh.Sawroop Lal:- This witness had brought the copy of office order dated 29.8.90 Ex. PW40/A. He has produced this document by getting it attested from the present SDM Sh. V.K. Kandpal.
Ex.PW40/A (is the office order from the office of Dy. Commissioner, Delhi which bars the transfer of agriculture land U/s 30 Indian Registration Act, in Delhi by obtaining registered sale deed from the metropolitan cities other than Delhi. This circular also bars the mutation on the basis of such transfer.) 15.27 PW44 Sh. Pritam Singh:- In 2002 he was working in office of BDO Alipur. He was also assigned the duty of Panchayat Secretary. He stated that land of Gram sabha was allotted to Growth Centre. Rs.11 crore was paid to the Gram Sabha. He does not know why the growth centre was not developed. He does not have any knowledge about State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 27/166 the consolidation proceedings in village Kanjhawla.
15.28 PW46 Sh. Hari Shankar:- On 26.8.03 he working as UDC in Food and Supply Department, Delhi. He was working as panch witness in ACB. He proved the disclosure statement of accused Suresh Chand as Ex. PW46/A. He stated that Suresh Chand who made the disclosure was not present at the time when he appended his signature on the same.
15.29 PW47 Sh. Azad Singh:- On 7.6.2004 He was posted as a record keeper in the office of Kanungo, Kanjhawla. He proved seizure memo Ex. PW47/A whereby IO seized the document which provided by him, these documents were mutation file, resolution of consolidation scheme and confirmation thereof by settlement officer Karwai register, certified copy of demand application, with respect to village Kanjhawla.
He also proved seizure memo Ex. PW47/B regarding providing the certified copy of mutation file, confirmation scheme of village Pooth Khurd. Witness proved the document from Ex. PW47/P1 to Ex. PW47/P38. (Original of these documents were produced and shown to the witness.) State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 28/166 He proved the demand application of village Kanjhawla Ex.PW61/P1 to Ex. PW61/P140 (OSR). He further proved the demand application of village Pooth Khurd which are Ex. PW55/H1 to Ex. PW55/H51 (OSR). Also proved Ex. PW61/P-141 to Ex. PW61/P- 146 being the certified pages of Karwai register (OSR).
Certified copy of true copy of consolidation scheme and scheme confirmed by SOC in respect of village Kanjhawla is Ex. PW61/P147 (Original karwai register seen and returned).
Witness also proved the certified copy of consolidation scheme and its confirmation Ex.PW65/Y36 (OSR). Witness also proved the original notice U/s 14A of Consolidation of Land Holding Act, certified copy thereof is Ex. PW55/B(OSR).
Original resolution No.15 is proved as Ex. PW47/P39. Proceeding of section 21 (1) of consolidation of Land Holding Act is proved as Ex. PW55/B. The original record of karwai demand /allocation of plots, as detailed in register karwai resolution No.19 is Ex. PW55/G. State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 29/166 15.30 PW48 Sh. Kartar Singh:- On 17.4.2002 he was posted as SDM North West provide information regarding posting of consolidation officer/patwari in District North West and also allotment of consolidation work to the CO/Patwari. In the letter through which information was furnished to the IO is Ex. PW48/B. 15.31 PW49 Sh. Ram Kishan:- This witness was residing in village Pooth Khurd since his birth. He deposed that Gian Chand Sharma, Tehsildar after taking the money divided the land in consolidation as per his wishes. He has named some other persons also in his testimony who paid bribe to G.C. Sharma to include their name in the list of allotment of land.
15.32 PW50 Pradeep Gupta:- In the year 1998 till January/February 2002, he was posted as Tehsildar(consolidation) in the office of DC, North West. He issued the order of allocating work to the patwaris. The office order regarding the same is Ex. PW50/A and Ex.PW50/B. 15.33 PW52 Sh. V.D. Ponkshe:- In the year 2002 he was working as Sub Registrar, Old custom House Fort, Mumbai. He supplied the list of State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 30/166 all properties of Delhi registered at Mumbai pertaining to vill. Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla for the period from 1997 to 1998. Copy of the list is Ex. PW52/A. Letter regarding the same is Ex. PW52/B. 15.34 PW53 Sh. Rajesh Kumar -Grade II-DASS:- This witness came from the office of Dy. Commissioner to prove the document Ex. PW40/A issued by Sh. D.S. Negi then Dy. Commissioner, Delhi. Letter is dated 29.8.90. This document is about bar to the registration of property of Delhi anywhere outside Delhi. However section 30 of Indian Registration Act does not bar the registration of such property by that time.
15.35 PW54 Sh. Ravinder Kumar:- He was posted as UDC in the office of Dy. Commissioner, Kanjhawla and entrusted to maintain file of Growth Centre. Seizure memo regarding the same is Ex. PW54/A. The witness has produced the original documents of Ex.PW54/B.(This document is regarding letter of allotment of Gaon sabha land to village Kanjhawla to Rural Development Department for setting up of Growth Centre). Witness also proved Ex. PW54/C which is regarding handing over of possession of Growth Centre land at Village Kanjhawla to DSIDC. Witness also proved Ex. PW54/D State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 31/166 i.e. sizra (map) of growth centre. Ex. PW54/E is a letter issued to G.C. Sharma by Dy. Director (RD) for allotment of land in the development of Growth centre.
15.36 PW55 Sh. Santosh Dutt:- On 7.6.2004 he was posted as Halka Patwari, Pooth Khurd and he provided certified copies of certain documents seized by the IO vide seizure memo E. PW55/A. These documents seized by the IO were pertains to Consolidation Officer of village Pooth Khurd. Certified copies of the document are Ex. PW55/B to Ex. PW55/G. I) Ex.PW55/B: Publication/Consolidation of village Pooth Khurd
ii) Ex.PW55/C: Document regarding the advisory committee(Pooth Khurd dated 11.6/9.96)
iii) Ex. PW55/D: Entry regarding repartition proceedings U/s 21(1) (register karwai chakbandi Pooth khurd)
iv) Ex. PW55/E Announcement of proceedings U/s 21(1) (Vill. Pooth Khurd) State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 32/166
v) Ex. PW55/F 1 to Certified copies of Ex. PW55/F36 the khata of village Pooth Khurd of repartition U/s 21 of the Act period w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.5.99.
vi) Ex. PW55/G is the list of residential and factory plots as per the demand of the land holders (resolution No.19 demand register) (of village Pooth Khurd)
vii) Ex.PW55/H1 are the certified copy of 151 to H151 demand applications mentioned at Sl.
No.4 of Ex.PW55/A(seizure memo) (Pooth Khurd) (During the course of chief examination of this witness no objection has been made by Ld. Defence counsel as to the exhibition of certified copy of the document in evidence) 15.37 PW56 Tara Dutt Khatri:- He State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 33/166 produced :
i) Notification No.123 dated 10.9.1993. Same is Ex. PW56/A (OSR)(This notification is declaration of the scheme for consolidation of holding in Kanjhawla U/s 14(1) East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation )Act.
(ii) Notification No.154 dated 5.9.88 is Ex.
PW56/B(OSR). (This notification is declaration of the scheme for consolidation of holding in Pooth Khurd U/s 14(1) East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation )Act.
(iii) Notification No.92 dated 12.6.96 Ex.
PW56/C(OSR). This notification is about amendment of Delhi Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules 1959 by LG in exercise of power U/s 46 of East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1948) (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948).
15.38 PW57 Sh. S.M. Haider:- This witness was posted as Dy. Director in the office of Project Director (Rural Development) from July 2003 State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 34/166 to December 2004. He stated that land involved construction of growth center at Kanjhawala had been illegally consolidated and allotment thereof was therefore illegal and government suffered a loss of Rs.1crore 53 lacs on account of cancellation of land alloted for growth Centre Kanjhawla. He proved document Ex. PW57/A to A4. Ex. PW57/A is the letter to the ACP, ACB giving information about the Growth Centre.
PW57/A1 :- is the questionnaire and reply. PW57/A2 :- is the details of the amount sanctioned.
Ex.PW57/A3:- is the expenditure of the growth centre.
Ex. PW57/A4 :- is the cancellation order of the growth centre, Kanjhawla.
15.39 PW58 Sh. Ram Niwas: Dy.
Commissioner:- He was posted as SDM Saraswati Vihar and SDM Narela during 1998-99. Consolidation process was going on in the village Kanjhawla and Puth Khurd during his period. G.C. Sharma was the consolidatoion officer of village Puth Khurd and PW58 was looking after the charge of SOC (Settlement Officer, Consolidation). As SOC, the officer has to confirm the scheme and the rest of the procedure is followed by consolidation officer as per State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 35/166 norms. Accordingly, he confirmed the scheme of consolidation of village Pooth Khurd. Before scheme is confirmed and announced objections were invited from the residents of village Pooth Khurd which was to be filed within 30 days of the announcement. He confirmed the consolidation scheme in 1993.
He deposed that once the scheme is announced and confirmed, the consolidation officer has no right to introduce any changes. The approval of competent authority is required in case of any change is made by the consolidation officer. He further stated that the consolidation officer has no right to change the consolidation scheme without the prior approval of financial commissioner.
He further admitted that G.C. Sharma and S.K. Sharma had allowed certain number of mutation in consolidation scheme.
He further admitted that he stated to the IO that as per the settled process the sale deed registered outside Delhi could not be entertained without the approval of ADM(R).
15.40 PW59 Sh. Satish Verma- UDC:-
He has produced the file from the office of financial State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 36/166 commissioner containing the order in a pending case before financial commissioner. The same has been exhibited as Ex. PW59/A. (this document is the order dated 24.12.2002 of financial Commissioner, Delhi regarding setting aside the extension of date for consolidation scheme of village Pooth Khurd from 23.2.98 to 31.8.98 as irregular. It was further directed that re-partition proceedings duly conducted de novo).
15.41 PW60 Sh. Vinay Bhushan-
General Manager , DTTDC. In June 1998 witness was posted as SDM Saraswati vihar and also holding the charge of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for village Kanjhawla. G.C. Sharma was consolidation officer of village Kanjhawala. In April 1997 he confirmed the consolidation scheme of village Kanjhawla.
He further deposed that after confirmation of the consolidation scheme, consolidation officer is not empowered to effect any changes. Changes if any can be effected only with the approval of Financial Commissioner, as provided under the East Punjab Holding of Land and Consolidation Act.
15.42 PW61 Sh. Satya Narayan:- In June State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 37/166 2005, he was working as Kanungo in Central Distt. He was called by IO to the SDM office to verify signature on certain documents pertaining to consolidation proceedings of village Kanjhawla. Application of land owners for allotment of plot in lieu of their land which was subject matter of consolidation. This witness has admitted that he could identify the signature of accused G.C. Sharma and V.K. Pandey and their signature existed on the document shown to him and also identified the accused persons. The witness had identified the signature of accused V.K. Pandey (the then patwari of all the 50 mutation files) on P1 form. The witness was shown the following original record pertaining to :-
i) Demand applications Ex. PW61/P1 to PW61/P140, on these documents the witness has identified the endorsement and signatures of accused G.C. Sharma at point A. These are the demand applications which were marked by accused G.C. Sharma to Halqa Patwari.
ii) Certified copy of resolution with respect to village Kanjhawla has been exhibited as Ex.
PW61/P141 to Ex.PW61/146 and P147 (Karwai register chakbandi). These are the resolution with respect to village Kanjhawla bears the signatures of State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 38/166 accused G.C. Sharma at point A and the witness has identified the same from the original record.
iii) Certified typed copy of consolidation scheme and scheme formed by SOC of village Kanjhawla Ex. Ex.PW61/P147 bears the signatures of accused G.C. Sharma at point A.
iv) Photocopy of mutation file bearing Misal No. M- 219 of village Kanjhawla is exhibited as Ex. PW61/P149 to P198. These documents are the mutation file pertains to village Kanjhawla and bear the signatures of accused Vinod Kumar Pandey at point A and B and of accused G.C. Sharma in his capacity as CO on various points.
v) Certified copy of chakbandi register No.3,4, 5 are Exhibited as PW61/P199 to Ex. PW61/P202 respectively. Original of these register were produced and has been exhibited and these registers containing detail of land owners with their names and holdings.
Witness has deposed that all demand applications as well as all the mutation files (misal and chakbandi) were shown to him by the IO during investigation and he identified signature of accused State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 39/166 Vinod Kumar and G.C. Sharma thereon. (Original record of this witness produced in court and shown to the witness).
15.43 PW63 Sh.Ishwar Singh:- This witness deposed that in the year 1996 consolidation of land holding of village Kanjahwala was started and he was the member of village Advisory committee and accused was the consolidation officer. He announced the scheme in June 1996. Land owners were given 30 days time from the date of announcement of scheme to demand residential and industrial plot. Accordingly land holders submitted their demands. He stated that in some case cases sale deed which were registered at Mumbai were also entertained. The new Bhumidar who had acquired rights subsequent to announcement of scheme, accordingly mutation was done and on the basis of this mutation, they were also allotted plots. He further deposed that on the asking of villagers, CO allowed 100 ft. wide road which was not in the scheme, replacing existing 16 ½ ft. wide road.
15.44 PW64 Inspector Tarkeshwar Singh:- He was posted as Inspector ACB and he went to Mumbai to verify the sale deed registered there pertains to land in village Kanjhawla and Pooth State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 40/166 Khurd, prepared a chart containing the details of all the sale deed after verification of registrar office. He verified the entries from the record after the entire record was prepared, these pages were attested by Sub Registrar namely V.D. Panksey. The record is already exhibited as Ex. PW52/A. (It is a handwritten list bearing the columns i.e. :-1.name and address of seller, 2.name and address of purchaser, 3,name and address of witness, 4.amount of stamp duty, 5.date of sale deed, 6.entry number of registration) 15.45 PW65 Sh. Ombir Singh:- This witness has identified handwriting and signature of accused G.C. Shama, Ishwar Singh and Suresh Chandra on separate sets of documents i.e.
1. The demand applications of village Pooth Khurd- signature identified of accused G.C. Sharma.
2. Record pertains to regulation No.27 of village Pooth Khurd- signature identified of accused Ishwar Singh and Suresh Chand
3. Mutation file alongwith P1 form of village Pooth Khurd-identified signature of accused Dharmanand , Dayanand.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 41/166 In the year 2005 he was posted as Halqa Patwari in Distt. South West. He was shown the record pertaining to the demand application of village Pooth Khurd. On examining the application, he pointed out to the IO that some of these were marked by accused G.C. Sharma and some of those were marked by accused Ishwar Singh. He identified the signatures of both of them on the applications. He had identified the signature since he had seen the signature of G.C. Sharma during the course of his employment as his subordinate. Whereas signature of accused Ishwar Singh were seen by him during the course of his employment where his staff also set alongwith him in the same room.
This witness identified the signatures of G.C. Shrama on demand application which has been exhibited as Ex. PW55/H1 to PW55/H14; PW55/H16 to PW55/H25; PW55/H32 to H34, H35, H38, H39, H41.
This witness identified the signatures of Ishwar Singh on demand application at point A on application exhibited as PW55/H12, PW55/H13, PW55/H43 to Ex. PW55/H51.
He also identified the signature of accused State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 42/166 Ishwar Singh at point B, Suresh Chandra at point C on document exhibited as Ex. PW55/D (this document is record pertaining to regulation No.27 of village Pooth Khurd w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.9.99. It bears the entry regarding proceedings U/s 21(1)).
He identified the signature of accused Dharmanand on each of P1 forms in the mutation files of village Pooth Khurd. The original record was produced. Same has been exhibited as Ex.PW65/Y1 to Ex.PW65/Y10, PW65/Y11 to PW65/Y21, PW65/Y22 to PW65/Y24, PW65/Y25 to PW65/Y27 and PW65/Y28 and Ex. PW65/Y36.
He identified the signature of accused Daya Nand, Patwari on each of P1 forms exhibited as Ex. PW65/Y29 to PW65/Y35 at point A.The original record was produced.
(witness described the procedure of making entry in P1 register on the basis of demand application It is stated that demand application filed by the applicant before the Tehsildar. P1 form is prepared by Halqa Patwari after referring to the revenue record. P1 form alongwith application for mutation alongwith relevant documents is further put up before Kanungo or Naib Office Kanungo for State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 43/166 necessary action, Kanungo further verified the contents of P1 form from the record. A notice is then issued to the seller and buyer and a notice to the public at large, before entering the original after giving opportunity of hearing to the above mentioned notices the tehsildar passes an order on mutation. Mutation so ordered is then entered in O-O register maintained by Naib Office Kanungo. From this register patwari also copies the entries in Khatoni register/record of rights. This procedure is generally followed by the revenue department ) 15.46 PW66 - Sh. Niranjan Singh:- He prepared rukka Ex.PW66/A on the basis of inquiry report Ex.PW20/B conducted by inspector A.K. Sexena. Rukka was submitted to DCP v.v. Chaudhary PS ACB who accorded approval for registration of the case and marked the investigation of this case to Insp. M.A. Salam vide endorsement Ex. PW66/B. 15.47 PW68:- Ms. Achla Singh-
Director:-On 1.12.04 she was posted as DC North and accorded the sanction Ex.PW68/A to prosecute accused Vinod Kumar Pandey, Patwari, vill. Kanjhawla.
15.48 PW69:- Sh. Kailash Chander, State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 44/166 Secretary Services:- On 2.7.2004 he was posted as DC (North West) and accorded to sanction Ex.PW69/A and Ex.PW69/B respectively U/s 19 of the P.C. Act to prosecute accused Dharmanand and Dayanand.
15.49 PW70 D.C.P. Sh. R.K. Singh :- On 4.3.03 he was posted as ACP, ACB. Investigation of this case was handed over to him, he arrested the accused G.C. Sharma and Suresh Chand, conducted their personal search, interrogated and recorded the statement of panch witness. He collected the document of the information regarding the growth centers vide Ex. PW57/A, Ex. PW57/A1 to Ex. PW57/A4. He further collected the files pertains to consolidation proceedings of village kanjhawla, 38 files of village Pooth Khurd vide seizure memo Ex. PW47/A and Ex.PW47/B. He has identified the signature of ACP Surjeet Singh in the list of beneficiary Ex.PW70/DA (of kanjhawla) and Ex. PW70-/DB( of Pooth Khurd).
(These lists bears the particulars of purchaser and sellers of the land by way of sale deed registered at Mumbai alongwith details of mutation). He further stated that he can not give the detail of khasra No. of the name of land owners who had State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 45/166 given land for growth centre.
15.50 PW 71 Insp. M.A. Salam Asstt.
Commandant, CISF:- In the year 2001 he was posted as Inspector in ACB. Investigation of this case was handed over to him on 15.1.01. He seized the document Ex. PW40/A, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW15/A and Ex. PW15/B, Ex.PW52/B. He also received letter Ex. PW13/G. He also proved letter Ex. PW71/A whereby he sought information/document from the office of Chief Minister, the information regarding the functions to be performed by Patwari, kanungo, naib tehsildar and consolidation officer is mark 71/B. He also received mutation files pertains to village Pooth Khurd, service record of the accused persons, consolidation scheme, confirmation of scheme on 23.2.98, Ex.PW65/Y36, list of land allotted for farm house as mark PW71/P-1(Kanjhawla) and PW71/Q-1(Pooth Khurd). He also recorded statement of the witnesses.
He arrested accused Ishwar Singh, Lalit Kumar Rana, Dayanand, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Dharmanand vide documents Exhibited from Ex. PW71/C to Ex.PW71/G. He prepared the chart mentioning particulars of State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 46/166 seller, purchaser, date of sale, date of mutation, name of the official involved as Ex. PW71/A for village Kanjhawla and Ex. PW71/L for village Pooth Khurd. List of plot numbers alongwith details of allottees/beneficiaries who got plot on the side of 100 ft. road is Ex. PW71/M. In his testimony IO has deposed that "During investigation, he found after scrutinizing the documents available on record, as well as from the documents seized by him that consolidation of land in village Kanjhawla was notified in the year 1993 and the accused G.C. Sharma was appointed as Consolidation Officer in the year 1996. In the year 1996, Village Advisory Committee was constituted, Draft Consolidation Scheme was prepared and announced. Objections were invited from the Land Holders, demand for allotment of plots in industrial area and Lal Dora were invited. Last date for demand application was fixed 30 days w.e.f. 25.6.1996, meaning thereby the last date was 24.7.1996.. It was found that 50 sale deeds had been registered with respect to land belonging to village Kanjhawla after 24.7.1996. Mutations, on the basis of these sale deeds, had been allowed, in violation of Administrative Order passed by Revenue Officers. Demand applications with respect to Land mutated State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 47/166 on the basis of these 50 sale deeds were also accepted by the accused persons. Lateron, these demand applications were entertained and plots were alloted thereon, through the scheme already stood confirmed by settlement officer (consolidation), without getting approval of the changes from competent authority, in the confirmed scheme. A 100 ft. wide road was carved out which was not in the confirmed scheme. Some part of land earmarked for Growth Centre (project Director) was mis-utilized towards allotment of plots to landholders. Even though, development work in Growth Centre had commenced. By increasing the number of right holders, by way of fresh mutations and sales, larger chunks of land were got allotted to persons, who were initially not the right holders. Repartition of Consolidation as per Section 21 of C&PF Act, was completed by accused V.K. Pandey, Suresh Chand and G.C. Sharma in May 1998.
After scrutiny of the entire record, I prepared the chart, already exhibited as Ex. PW71/K. Accused G. C. Sharma and V.K. Pandey had given undue benefit to the persons, who became right holders on the strength of Sale Deeds, got executed after the last date of demand application.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 48/166 During investigation, I had also found after scrutinizing the documents available on record, as well as from the documents seized by me that consolidation of land in village Pooth Khurd was notified in the year 1988 and S.K. Sharma was appointed as Consolidation Officer in the initial part of the year 1996. Subsequently, accused G.C. Sharma was appointed as Consolidation Officer in the same year.
IO has stated the entire facts and sequence in detail in his testimony.
Witness has admitted that details mentioned in Ex.PW71/P1 were taken from the record maintained by accused V.K. Pandey, original record was not seized. His extract was prepared by accused V.K. Pandey and countersigned by the then tehsildar. Similarly, Ex. PW71/Q1 was prepared by Ombir and countersigned by consolidation officer. (the record prepared by the public servant, how the authenticity of the same can be doubted).
Witness admitted that no notification inferring power under Delhi Police is on record of this case. He has not placed on record any notification of government of NCT that investigation in the present State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 49/166 case was to be carried out by an officer of the rank of inspector.
The witness further admitted that he did not come across the name of trader or financier who might have paid huge amount to G. C. Sharma for showing favour to them. He further did not come across the names of persons who might have bribed accused G.C. Sharma for allotting them plots in Lal Dora at goods positions.
However he deposed that he came across names from whom G.C. Shrma or Vinod Pandey had demanded bribe. The name of such persons are Tara Chand, Mehar Singh and Sardar Singh. Some other persons namely Surat Singh, Balwan Singh, Sahib Singh, Narayan Singh of village Pooth Khurd, Moti Ram of village Pooth Khurd and Randhir Singh of village Kanjhawala had stated that bribe was demanded from them on behalf of accused G.C. Sharma.
The witness further stated that he point out as to who were the persons effected by the repartition of land which had occasion because of the sale deed registered in Bombay. However this fact is contained in consolidation register of village Kanjhawla State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 50/166 exhibited as Ex. PW61/P199 to Ex. PW61/P202 and Ex.PW61/146.
Witness did not seize any notification U/s 3(5) of the Act. He did not come across any such notification during his investigation.
Witness deposed that accused applicants made mutation entry on the basis of sale deed presented by the buyers registered at Bombay, the mutation on the basis of sale deed registered outside Delhi had been restrained by the orders of senior officers.
Witness did not examine any property dealer who might have bargained on the asking of accused persons for the sale deed executed at Bombay and making corresponding mutation entries.
Witness cannot give the khasra Number or names of landlord of the land upto which lal dora had been extended prior to commencement of consolidation. He further cannot give the khasra number or names of land owner upto which the Lal dora was proposed to be extended through consolidated scheme. Witness further stated that same has been mentioned in consolidation scheme Ex. PW20/C. State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 51/166 He deposed that about 945 bighas of land was reserved for growth centre. All the land assigned to the growth centre was originally as gram sabha land as indicated in Ex.PW54/B. It was deposed by the witness that he prepared list for persons who were allotted the land of growth centre. He stated that there were 9 farm houses in village Kanjhawla and Pooth Khurd prior to commencement of consolidation proceedings.
On the question about evidence collected by him on the aspect that accused G.C. Sharma facilitated the consolidation of farm house, the witness replied that in village Kanjhawla , Balvinder Singh, Surender Kumar Dabas and others, Rajesh Dabas and Ved Prakash were intially possessing farm houses. Consolidation land of Rajesh Dabas , Ved Prakash and Balbir Singh of their farm houses was allotted to Growth Centre also that their farm houses could be wiped off as they had not paid the demanded bribe. Similarly, land of farm house of Surender Kumar Dabas was included in Lal Dora so that it could be used as farm house. Witness has stated this fact on the basis of Ex. PW71/P1. Kumari Priti, Jayant and Gaurav and others were the beneficiaries on account of allocation of land of farm State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 52/166 houses in village Pooth Khurd after the consolidation proceedings. This fact is indicated in Ex. PW71/Q1.
On the aspect of 100 ft road, witness has deposed that same was carved out in the year 2001, record was only in papers. 50 persons were allotted land on this road so that they could gain in future.
Witness deposed that Mahender Singh, Fateh Singh, Baldev Singh and Ram Kumar Gupta were outsider to village Kanjhawla and were allotted land after consolidation in village Kanjhawla. One minor namely Janak was also allotted land in consolidation. Witness also proved statement of the witnesses U/s 161 CrPC as Ex. PW71/D2(A1) PW72/D3/(A1), PW71/D4(A1), PW71/D5(A1), PW71/D6(A1). Document Ex.PW71/L was also proved by the witness which is a list of sale deed executed after 23.2.98 pertains to village Pooth Khurd.
16). After recording prosecution evidence entire incriminating material U/s 313 CrPC put to the accused persons they have pleaded innocence and false implication by prosecution.
In his statement U/s 313 CrPC accused G.C. Sharma admitted the consolidation proceedings.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 53/166 He also admitted that advisory committee was constitute. The applications were invitated, consolidation and re-partition was done. Accused G.C. Sharma has stated that the consolidation proceedings and mutation was carried out in accordance with law. He is also not disputed his signatures on the demand application and the proceedings.
Accused Vinod Kumar Pandey in his statement U/s 313 CrPC has stated that he was posted as patwari at village Kanjhawla in 1996. He also not disputed the document pertains to consolidation and mutation.
Accused Lalit Kumar Rana has stated that he was posted as Patwari in village Pooth Khurd from September 1998 to July 1999 but he denied any connivance with the accused persons. He also stated that no document regarding consolidation or mutation bears his signatures.
Accused Suresh Chandra denied that he was the ACO of village Pooth Khurd but has not denied the signatures on re-partition proceedings.
Accused Ishwar Singh in his statement U/s 313 State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 54/166 CrPC not denied his signatures on the proceedings but stated that he was only involved in the alleged offence. He also stated that circular issued by higher authorities was illegal having no force by law. So far as allotment of plots is concerned, he stated that same was carried out as per the procedure laid down under the law.
Accused Daya Nand in his statement U/s 313 CrPC stated that he was posted as patwari on 9.7.98 and admitted of making report of P1 form but on the basis of revenue record and forwarded the same to the Kanoongo.
Accused Dharmanand in his statement u/s 313 CrPC stated that he was posted in village Pooth Khurd from 9.7.98 to 5.9.98 as patwari.
17). From the side of the accused several witnesses examined in defence.
17.1. DW1 Kamlesh Kumar UDC, has been called alongwith transfer and posting order of accused Suresh Chand which was earlier marked as Ex. PW17/D1(A3),in his testimony same is exhibited as DW1/A. The copy of order Ex. DW1/B is the reliving order of G.C. Sharma. DW1/C is relieving of G.C. State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 55/166 Sharma and handing over of charge to S.C. Sharma.
17.2. DW2 SI Mahesh Pal :- DW2/A is the RTI showing that Mohamad Abdul Salam PW17 was not posted in Delhi Police on that day. (in cross- examination Ld. Addl. PP that inspector Abdul Salam had gone from Delhi Police to ACB, to this witness shows his ignorance).
17.3. DW4 Sh. Deepak Shokeen:- He produced the original complete file pertains to a revision petition filed by one Hawa Singh section 42 of Punjab Holding Act. In cross-examination the witness said that the present matter is still pending before Financial Commissioner and same was against the consolidation officer and the then settlement officer i.e. accused G.C. Sharma.
17.4 DW5 SDM Vikas Pandey:- Witness has admitted that vide order 22.10.01 property in Delhi and Mumbai is barred from mutation from 24.9.01 onwards. He further stated that deed registered in Mumbai and other metropolitan cities before 24.9.01 were also valid .
17.5. Accused moved an application U/s 315 CrPC to deposed as a witness in his defence. The State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 56/166 same was allowed and the accused Suresh Chandra examined himself as DW6 and proved document Ex.DW6/A.
18). Arguments are advanced by Sh. N.K. Sharma Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused G.C. Sharma, Sh. Rajinder Pal Singh on behalf of accused Satish Chandra, Sh. Raj Pal Singh Ld. Counsel for accused Vinod Kumar Pandey, Dharmanand and Daya Nand Saroha, Sh. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat Ld. Counsel for accused Lalit Rana and by Sh. Ashok Dalal Ld. Counsel for accused Ishwar Singh.
19). On behalf of accused G.C. Sharma who was posted as Consolidation Officer, it is submitted by counsel Sh.N.K. Sharma that:-
19.1 There has been no specific allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe. IO failed to find out any traces of the same.
Although accused G.C. Sharma was retired hence the sanction U/s 19 of PC Act was not required but IO had failed to obtain the mandatory sanction U/s 197 CrPC for the commission of offence punishable U/s 120B IPC which is required even after the retirement of the public servant. Since the State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 57/166 offence alleged against the accused has been committed while discharging his official duties as a public servant, therefore, sanction U/s 197 CrPC is mandatory.
It is further argued that charge is not specific under which clause U/s 13(1)(d) same has been framed.
It is averred that initial investigation of this case carried out by IO M.A. Salam is illegal as he was not authorized to investigate in accordance with section 17(d) of PC Act. In the present case the prosecution has neither proved authorization of M.A. Salam by the Metropolitan Magistrate or by the State Government.
It is further averred that proof of demand beyond reasonable doubt is the main and essential ingredient to prove the commission of offence U/s 13(1)(d) P.C. Act. Witness has failed to establish this fact beyond reasonable doubt.
19.2. It is further submitted by the counsel for accused that section 3 to 8 and section 30 of East Punjab Holding Act shows that there was not a complete prohibition of transfer of land during State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 58/166 consolidation proceedings. It was limited to fragment area which was the purpose of the act. As per record there is no evidence that fragment area were even declared and notified in the estate of village Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla.
It is averred that as per section 30 of Indian Registration Act, the registration of sale deed at Mumbai was legal. PW52, PW13 and PW64 have also stated so. Administrative order to the contrary have no legal force. Prosecution has also not able to prove any role of G.C. Sharma in registration of sale deed at Mumbai.
The mutation orders were passed on the basis of legally registered sale deed as per section 23 of Delhi Land Revenue Act 1954 in the capacity of tehsildar. He acted as a revenue court within the meaning of sub section 161 of section 3 of the Land Revenue Act.
Change in consolidation scheme could be made even after publication thereof.
Demand application has not been proved as per the law of evidence merely marking exhibit number does not prove the document.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 59/166 19.3 It is further averred that there is no specific evidence to prove as to how, in respect of which farm houses the accused G.C. Sharma had manipulated and facilitated the allotment of plots to the other family members of farm house owners.
It is further submitted that Prosecution has failed to prove the land alloted to the Growth Centre Kanjhawala was taken out during consolidation and allotted to others and some other plots were added to the plot for growth centre. Even otherwise, this is no offence if some land of approved centre was included in consolidation.
It is further averred that consolidation scheme of the Estate Ex. PW20/C(D-42) provides for 10 Ghatta road. Therefore, the allegation that 100 ft. road in Kanjhawla was created by the accused and was not the part of confirmed scheme is baseless.
There is no evidence to show detail of children and dead persons in whose names plots were allegedly allotted during consolidation proceedings.
20). On behalf of accused Ishwar Singh, who State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 60/166 was posted as Consolidation Officer, alongwith the ground taken by the counsel for G.C. Sharma, it is submitted by the counsel for accused Ishwar Singh that :-
Prosecution witnesses have failed to prove any demand of illegal gratification against accused Ishwar Singh, it is a mandatory requirement to prove the existence of demand and acceptance for the commission of offence U/s 13(1)(d), 13(2) of P.C. Act. Reliance is placed upon judgment State Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede (2009) 15 SCC 200.
It is further submitted that the inquiry report Ex.PW20/B stating the sanction of mutation was violative of provisions of section 7 and 8 of East Punjab Holding Act 1948 is wrong, since for the operation of provisions of section 7 and section 8, there must be a notification U/s 3 of the Consolidation Act. The prosecution has not produced any such notification.
It is further submitted that the Kanoongo after verifying the correctness of report of the proposal forwards the same to the Naib Tehsildar/ACO who acts on the basis of report sent by State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 61/166 the Kanoogo, therefore, he was the main person who has not been made accused.
So far as the acceptance of demand application for residential and industrial plot, there is no such application on which signature of Ishwar Singh were identified by the witness.
Ishwar Singh, tehsildar was nominated to function as consolidation officer of Pooth Khurd vide order dated 1.9.98 vide Ex. PW29/B. Therefore, was not posted during the relevant period.
21). On behalf of accused Lalit Rana, who was posted as Patwari, alongwith the ground taken by the counsel for accused G.C. Sharma, it is submitted by the counsel for accused Lalit Kumar Rana that :-
It is argued that the accused Lalit Kumar Rana never worked as patwari of village Pooth Khurd during the period w.e.f. 3.6.96 to 1998. Accused was transferred from district North to Distt. North West on 27.7.98 and took charge of village Pooth Khurd as patwari only on 4.9.98. As per the deposition of PW37, the scheme was confirmed on 18.5.98 vide Ex.
PW47/B whereas accused has joined as patwari only thereafter i.e. on 4.9.98 and the scheme was already State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 62/166 confirmed before his joining.
It is further submitted that applicant had nowhere signed during the proceedings U/s 21(1) carried out w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.5.99 which can be proved by the prosecution own document Ex.PW55/B and 55/C.
22). On behalf of accused Suresh Chandra, who was posted as Naib Tehsildar/ACO, alongwith the ground taken by the counsel for accused G.C. Sharma, it is submitted by the counsel for accused Suresh Chandra that :-
Suresh Chandra had joined as Assistant Consolidation Officer village Kanjhawla on 7.7.98 after being relieved from Narela w.e.f. 6.7.98. All the allotment(repartition) U/s 21(1) already completed by the consolidation officer before 29.5.98 prior to the joining of the accused.
There is no evidence of pecuniary gains obtained or received by the accused.
As per section 21 of East Punjab Holding (CPF) Act 1948, the power of repartition finalized with the consolidation officer only, the provision nowhere referred to any assistant consolidation officer.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 63/166 The designation ACO has not defined anywhere in the constitute. Section 21 of East Punjab Holding (CPF) Act 1948 only states that CO is having the power to carry out the re-partition.
The re-partition carried out in the village Kanjhawla, the official re-partition proceeding does not bear the signature of any ACO. Only CO has signed upon the conclusion of the proceedings. In the same manner, the proceedings of partition with respect to the village Pooth Khurd should have been signed by the CO only. Accused Suresh Chandra was made scapegoat and forced to sign upon the re- partition proceedings.
23). On behalf of accused Dayanand and Dharmanand, and Vinod Kumar Pandey who were posted as Patwaris, alongwith the ground taken by the counsel for accused G.C. Sharma, it is submitted by their counsel that :-
After receipt of application from Naib office kanaungo, the patwari writes his remarks on the basis of available revenue record and the said entry further verified/certified/authenticated by naib office kanungo on personal verification from the records.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 64/166 It is further submitted that Dayanand Saroha, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Dharmanand were mid level revenue officials (Patwari) having no direct dealing with right holders or their applications or sanction of mutation. Only after getting instructions from the kanungo they were required to make report on form P1 on the basis of relevant revenue record and submitted the same to the Kanungo. Both the accused persons have bonafidely and sincerely made the entries in the record pertaining to village Pooth Khurd.
It is further argued that there is no evidence of pecuniary gain against the accused persons.
24). Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Balbir Singh argued on behalf of State and submitted that prosecution has examined all the relevant witness and proceeded the entire record. There are sufficient incriminating material against each of the accused person which is more than sufficient to convict the accused persons.
It is further averred the accused being the public servant have conspired and acted in a manner to gain pecuniary advantage for themselves and for others by illegally mutating and allotting the plot in State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 65/166 the confirmed consolidation scheme. Accused committed the offence while holding their office as a public servant without any public interest.
25). Arguments advanced on behalf of accused heard and entire record perused.
26). In this case IO M.A. Salam was posted as Inspector in ACB and investigation of this case was handed over to him on 15.1.2001 by the order of the then DCP V.V. Chaudhary vide endorsement ex. PW66/B and he carried out the investigation till the same was assigned to other IO. However the concerned DCP was not examined but his signatures were identified on the endorsement by PW66 Niranjan Singh. Investigation to Inspector M.A. Salam was marked by the DCP on the report of PW66 Sh. Niranjan Singh who carried out the inquiry into the allegation of the complaint against accused G.C. Sharma & Others vide Ex. PW66/A. On the basis of inquiry the recommendation of registration of FIR and handing over the investigation to M.A. Salam was given. In his cross-examination, PW71 Inspector M.A. Salam has admitted that no notification inferring power under Delhi Police is on record of this case. He has not placed on record any notification of Government of NCT that investigation in the present State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 66/166 case was to be carried out by an officer of the rank of Inspector.
27). Despite the above, this court cannot lose sight of the fact the IO has carried out the investigation of present case, seized the documents, arrested the accused and carried out the major part of the investigation only on the directions of superior officer, written authorisation to investigate by DCP is proved vide Ex. PW66/B. Even otherwise also merely not filing the authorization on record does not vitiate the investigation carried out by him. This is not a case where the entire investigation is carried out by Inspector M.A. Salam. The remaining investigation of this case was carried out by the subsequent IO's, eventually, the charge-sheet was filed by ACP Surjit Singh.
The important question here is the investigation which has not been conducted by an officer authorized to do so U/s 17 of the Act, until and unless, it is shown that such investigation is resulted in mis-carriage of justice, same cannot be considered illegal. In this case investigation which is carried out by an inspector from CISF resulted into filing of final report U/s 173 CrPC. On that basis the cognizance was also taken, entire trial was conducted and matter State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 67/166 reached to the final stage. The fact of authorization is not going to effect the outcome of the case unless it is shown that any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused persons on account of such investigation which was conducted by an Inspector instead of DCP/ACP. Here, accused persons have failed to show such serious prejudice or any mis- carriage of justice.
28). The observation of this court is found support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.N.Rishbud & Anrs. Vs. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC (196) wherein it was held that :-
"A defect or illegality in investigation, however, serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. A police report which result from an investigation is also the material on which cognizance can be taken. It cannot be maintained that a valid and legal police report shall be the foundation of the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance.
Section 190 CrPC is one out of a State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 68/166 group of sections under the heading "conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings." The language of this section is the marked contrast with that of the other sections of the group under the same heading i.e. sections 193 and 195 to 199".
29). Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State, wherein it was held that :-
"In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement in 2008 itself where the legal position has been crystallized it cannot be said that conducting of the investigation in this case by an Inspector without any authorization which also resulted into the filing of a report u/s 173 CrPC after completing the investigation and on that basis the cognizance was also taken, would make the conviction of State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 69/166 the appellant illegal on the ground of defect of authorization unless it is shown that any serious prejudice has been caused to the incumbent on account of such investigation which was conducted by an Inspector instead of DCP/ACP.
"Taking into consideration the aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Lok Ayukta (supra) and the judgments cited by the appellant as referred to above including the case of Sankaram Karri (supra), it is apparent that despite the language of section 17 of the Act as quoted above, if the investigation is done by an officer below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Police and the same is completed and the challan is filed before a competent court who has taken cognizance thereof and the proceedings State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 70/166 ensued resulting in the conviction of the accused, the same would not be set aside merely because the investigation has not been conducted by an officer authorized to do so under section 17 of the Act unless and until it is shown that such investigation is resulted in miscarriage of justice as has been observed in the case of Sankaram Karri in paragraph 21 thereof(supra)."
Therefore, this argument is not tenable in view of above discussion.
30). Further, there has been argument on behalf of accused Ishwar Singh, Suresh Chandra, Dayanand saroha, Dharmanand, Lalit Rana that during the relevant period of time when the consolidation proceedings were taken place in village Pooth Khurd and Kanjhwala they were not posted there, therefore, no offence is made out.
It is further submitted on behalf of the accused persons that in the present case charge has been State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 71/166 framed for the commission of offence during the period w.e.f. 3.6.96 to June 1998, therefore, if they were not posted during this period, no offence is made out against them.
31). So far as contention of Ld. Defence counsel regarding the posting of accused persons and their having no role in the consolidation proceedings and allotment of plots in contravention of scheme of consolidation.
Accused G.C. Sharma was posted as consolidation officer of both the village w.e.f. 13.6.96 to 31.8.98.His posting is already established by the prosecution by the prosecution vide ex. PW48/B. Apart from this the record pertains to the confirmation of the scheme U/s 20 of the Act vide Ex.PW55/Y-36 of village Poothkhurd, ex.PW61/P147 and Ex. PW61/P148 of village Kanjhawla, the same was announced and confirmed by accused G.C. Shrama himself. Moreover, he has not disputed his postings during the relevant period.
Accused Ishwar Singh was the consolidation officer of village Poothkhurd and posted there w.e.f. 1.9.98 to 25.6.99, his posting has been established vide office order Ex. PW48/B and Ex. PW29/B. The State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 72/166 document pertains to repartition of village Poothkhurd during his tenure has been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW55/D, this bears his signatures at point B. Accused Dharmanand was posted at village Poothkhurd from 21.6.96. in his statement U/s 313 CrPC he had stated that he was posted at village Poothkhurd w.e.f. 9.7.98 to 5.9.98. However his signatures are there on each P1 form in mutation files of village Pooth Khurd which has been exhibited as PW65/Y1 to Ex. PW65/Y10, PW65/Y11 to PW65/Y21, PW65/Y22 to PW65/Y24, PW65/Y25 to PW65/Y27 and PW65/Y28 and Ex. PW65/Y36. These entries on P1 form were made after confirmation of consolidation scheme U/s 20 of the Act on the basis of applications and sale deeds. Accordingly, the plots were allegedly allotted to new right holders who were not the beneficiary in the consolidation scheme. Therefore, the posting of the accused during the relevant period is also not in dispute.
Accused Suresh Chandra was posted as ACO/Naib Tehsildar of village Kanjhawla w.e.f. 7.7.98 and his posting is proved vide Ex. PW58/DX. He was also remained posted as ACO of village Poothkhurd and the same is proved vide document Ex.PW55/D, State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 73/166 this document is record pertains to regulation No.27 of village Poothkhurd w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.9.99. It bears the entry regarding proceedings U/s 21(1) and signatures of accused Satish Chandra.
Accused Lalit Kumar Rana was posted as Patwari of village Poothkhurd from September 98 to July 99. He has admitted this fact in his statement U/s 313 CrPC.
Accused Dayanand was posted as Patwari at village Poothkhurd since 9.7.98. He admitted the making of report on P1 form on the basis of revenue record and forwarded the same to Kanoongo. In his statement U/s 313 CrPC, he has confirmed the same . His signature on P1 form exhibited as PW65/Y29 to Y35 at point A has been proved. These entries are after the confirmation of consolidation scheme U/s 20 of the Act.
Accused Vinod Kumar Pandey was posted as patwari of village Kanjhawla from 23.11.99., his posting is proved vide Ex. PW48/B and Ex. PW50/A. Therefore, postings of the accused persons in view of the above discussion has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 74/166
32). The next part of the argument is about the date of offence mentioned in the charge framed against the accused persons.
In the present case, the charge has been framed against accused G.C.Sharma, Ishwar Singh, Lalit Kumar Rana, Dayanand, Dharmanand and Suresh Chandra qua village Poothkhurd and accused G.C. Sharma, Suresh Chand, Vinod Kumar Pandey qua village Kanjhawla. Undoubtedly the date of offence has been mentioned as w.e.f. 3.6.96 to June 1998 in the formal charge framed against the accused. The important question here for consideration is whether the offence allegedly committed by the accused persons during the period of their respective postings can be brought in to the ambit of the charge or the consideration on the period of commission of offence is only restricted to the date mentioned in the formal charge.
33). On this important aspect the discussion of section 215 CrPC is important. The provision read as under:-
Section 215:- Effect of errors- "No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 75/166 or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice."
The intent of this provision is clear that the error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge are immaterial so long as same is not resulted in failure of justice. A close reading of the provisions clarifies that an error in framing of charge must be material and it should have occasion a failure of justice for it to vitiate a trial. An irregularity is not regarded as fatal unless it results in substantial prejudice to the accused.
This principal has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Willie (Williams) Slaney Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116:-
"If he does, if he is tried by competent court, if he is told and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself, then, provided there is substantial State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 76/166 compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere mistakes in procedure, mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal by the Court and the trial is not vitiated unless the accused ensures substantial prejudice."
34). In the present case, the charge for commission of offence U/s 13(1)(d) PC Act 1988 and 120B IPC has been framed. There is no fatal irregularity and has not caused any prejudice to the accused persons as all the particulars regarding the charge has been given. The accused understood the case against them and there has been no failure of justice by not mentioning the entire period of commission of offence in accordance with the different steps of the consolidation proceedings. The accused persons were aware of the period and place of their postings, their role in the consolidation proceedings, the only point of determination in this case is whether the acts of the accused persons in consolidation proceedings comes under the ambit of commission of offence U/s 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and 120B of IPC. The accused were aware of the case; the facts essential for them to defend during the trial, were outlined in the charges. It has been held by Hon'ble High court in M.M. Gandhi Vs. State of Mysore AIR 1960 Kant 111 that :-
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 77/166 "All the particulars necessary to make the accused understand that he was being tried for the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duties on ground falling under clause (a) and (d) of sub section S.(1) of S. (5), have been set out in the charge".
The entire incriminating material firstly put up before the accused at the time of filing of the charge- sheet, thereafter, at the time of framing of charge and also during the examination of the witnesses. The witnesses examined and record contradicted on each and every aspect which was put up against the accused persons by the prosecution. The accused understood the case against them and there has been no failure of justice if the date of commission of offence in the charge is not mentioned comprehensively. Therefore, there was no failure of justice, or prejudice to the accused flowing from omission in framing of charges.
The offence alleged against the accused persons is to be seen in the totality of the circumstances under the light of evidence produced State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 78/166 by the prosecution in accordance with the posting and duties of the accused persons during the mutation and consolidation proceedings under the Act.
35). It has been argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that demand application which have been filed on record has been marked, merely filing and marking as exhibit on the document is no proof of document which are required to be proved as per law of evidence. Reliance is placed on the judgment of S.C.Allamelu & Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police.
35.1. As per the document proved by prosecution in this case notification U/s 14(1) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 was issued on 5.9.88 for village Poothkhurd vide Ex.PW56/B. In respect of village Kanjhawla notification Ex. PW56/A was issued on 10.9.93. The rules of consolidation for both the villages were notified vide notification dated 12.6.96 vide Ex.PW56/C. Thereafter, The advisory committee was constituted on 11.9.96 for village Pooth Khurd and on 6.7.96 for village Kanjhawla vide document Ex. PW55/C. State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 79/166 The consolidation scheme of village Kanjhawla was announced by accused G.C. Sharma, Consolidation Officer on 23.2.98. 30 days time in accordance with section 20 of the Act was given to file any objections. Thereafter, on the expiry of 30 days period scheme was confirmed U/s 20 of the Act on 24.7.97. The relevant document in this respect is Ex. PW61/P-147 and P148.
The consolidation scheme of village Pooth Khurd was announced by accused G.C. Sharma, Consolidation Officer on 23.2.98. 30 days time in accordance with section 20 of the Act was given to file any objections. Thereafter, the expiry of 30 days period scheme was confirmed U/s 20 of the Act on 18.5.98. The relevant document in this respect is Ex. PW65/Y-36.
Thereafter, in accordance with section 21 of the Act repartition in accordance with the scheme of consolidation was carried out.
The repartition qua village Kanjhawla was taken place w.e.f. 5.5.98 to 29.5.98. The relevant documents to this respect are exhibited as Ex. PW61/P199 to Ex. PW61/P202 and Ex.PW61/146.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 80/166 The repartition qua village Kanjhawla was taken place w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.5.99. The relevant documents to this respect are exhibited as Ex. PW55/D. 35.2 In the present case PW55 Santosh Dutt, PW61 Satya Narayan and PW65 Ombir Singh are the main witnesses who had produced the record in the court.
PW55 Santosh Kumar was posted as Halqa Patwari Poothkhurd had provided certified copy of certain documents seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW55/A. These documents seized by the IO were pertains to consolidation officer of village Pooth Khurd and certified copies of these documents has been produced in evidence. These documents has been exhibited as:-
I) Ex.PW55/B: Publication/Consolidation of village Pooth Khurd
ii) Ex.PW55/C: Document regarding the advisory committee(Pooth Khurd dated 11.6/9.96) Iii) Ex. PW55/D: Entry regarding repartition proceedings U/s 21(1) (register karwai chakbandi vill.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 81/166 Pooth khurd)
iv)Ex. PW55/E Announcement of proceedings U/s 21(1) (Vill. Pooth Khurd)
v) Ex. PW55/F 1 to Certified copies of the Ex. PW55/F36 khata of village Pooth Khurd of repartition U/s 21 of the Act period w.e.f.
18.3.99 to 5.5.99.
vi) Ex. PW55/G is the list of residential
and factory plots as per
the demand of the land
holders (resolution No.19
demand register) (of
village Pooth Khurd)
vii) Ex.PW55/H1 to are the certified copy of
H151 151 demand applications
mentioned at Sl. No.4 of
Ex.PW55/A (seizure
memo)(Pooth Khurd)
viii)Ex.PW55/J is the list of right holders
of
village Poothkhurd seized
by the IO vide seizure
memo
ix) Ex.PW55/K1 to List mentioning name of
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 82/166
PW55/K4 right holders
In his testimony, PW 55 has stated
"original of the certified copies of the document proved by him have been brought by Consolidation Officer, to the court today. I have compared the original brought today by the Consolidation Officer, with the copies proved by him and the entries contained in the certified copies are true as per the original record produced in the court today."
35.3 PW61 Sh. Satya Narayan. He was working as Kanoongo in Central Distt. He was called by IO to SDM office to verify signatures on certain documents pertaining to consolidation proceedings to village Kanjhawla. This witness has produced and proved the following document:-
i) Demand applications on these documents the Ex. PW61/P1 to witness has identified the PW61/P140 endorsement and signatures of accused G.C. Sharma at point A. These are the demand applications which were marked by accused G.C. Sharma to Halka Patwari.
ii) Certified copy of These are the resolution State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 83/166 resolution with respect to with respect to village village Kanjhawla has Kanjhawla bears the been exhibited as Ex. signatures of accused PW61/P141 to G.C. Sharma at point A Ex.PW61/146 and P147 and the witness has (Karwai register identified the same from chakbandi) the original record.
Iii) Ex. Ex.PW61/P147 Certified typed copy of
consolidation scheme and
scheme formed by SOC of
village Kanjhawla bears
the signatures of accused
G.C. Sharma at point A.
(iv) Photocopy of These documents are the
mutation file bearing mutation file pertains to
Misal No. M-219 of village village Kanjhawla and
Kanjhawla is exhibited as bear the signatures of
Ex. PW61/P149 to P198. accused Vinod Kumar
Pandey at point A and B
and of accused G.C.
Sharma in his capacity as
CO on various points.
(v) Certified copy of Original of these register chakbandi register were produced and has No.3,4, 5 are Exhibited as PW61/P199 to Ex. been exhibited and these PW61/P202 respectively.
registers containing detail of land owners with their State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 84/166 names and holdings.
During the testimony of PW61 Karan Singh Kanoongo has produced the entire original record of mutation pertains to village Kanjhawla.
35.4 PW65 Sh. Ombir Singh:- This witness has produced the original record pertaining to village Pooth Khurd. He was posted as Halqa Patwari in Distt. South West. This witness has proved the following documents:-
i). Ex. PW55/H1 toThese are demand PW55/H14; PW55/H16 toapplications which were PW55/H25; PW55/H32 tomarked by accused G.C. H34, H35, H38, H39, H41. Sharma to Halqa Patwari.
This witness identified the signatures of G.C. Shrama.
ii). Demand applicationThese are demand Ex.PW55/H12, PW55/H13,applications which were PW55/H43 to Ex.marked by accused Ishwar PW55/H51. Singh to Halqa Patwari.
This witness identified the signatures of Ishwar Singh on demand application at State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 85/166 point A on application Iii)Ex. PW55/D This witness also identified the signature of accused Ishwar Singh at point B, Suresh Chandra at point C on this document. (this document is record pertaining to regulation No.27 of village Pooth Khurd w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.9.99. It bears the entry regarding proceedings U/s 21(1)).
iv) Ex.PW65/Y1 toThere are P1 form in the Ex.PW65/Y10, PW65/Y11mutation file where to PW65/Y21, PW65/Y22patwaris made entry and to PW65/Y24, PW65/Y25report. He identified the to PW65/Y27 andsignature of accused PW65/Y28 and Ex.Dharmanand on each of P1 PW65/Y36. forms.
v) Ex. PW65/Y29 to There are P1 forms in the PW65/Y35 mutation file where patwaris made entry and report. He identified the signature of accused Daya Nand, Patwari on each of P1 forms at point A.The original record was State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 86/166 produced.
In his testimony this witness has stated that "I have also seen P1 forms contained in the above record files brought by Kanoongo, DC office and compared them with the photocopies marked in my statement dated 20.9.2013. I have compared the original with the photocopies and found them to be correct".
35.5. PW56 Sh. Tara Dutt, Daftari is another important witness who has produced the following record and proved the same:-
1).Notification No.123 (This notification is dated 10.9.1993. Same is declaration of the scheme Ex. PW56/A (OSR) for consolidation of holding in Kanjhawla U/s 14(1) East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation )Act.
2)Notification No.154 (This notification is
dated 5.9.88 is Ex.
declaration of the scheme
PW56/B(OSR).
for consolidation of
holding in Pooth Khurd
U/s 14(1) East Punjab
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 87/166
Holdings (Consolidation
and Prevention of
Fragmentation )Act.
3)Notification No.92 This notification is about
dated 12.6.96 Ex.
amendment of Delhi
PW56/C(OSR).
Holdings (Consolidation
and Prevention of
Fragmentation) Rules
1959 by LG in exercise of
power U/s 46 of East
Punjab Holding
(Consolidation and
Prevention of
Fragmentation Act 1948)
(East Punjab Act 50 of
1948).
35.6 Following are the lists of such beneficiaries
of village Kanjhawala, mark PW71/A and pootkhurd PW71/B bearing details of seller and purchaser, sale deed of Mumbai and details of mutations:-
LIST OF BENEFICIARIES OF VILLAGE KANJHWLA, SELLER & PURCHASER, SALE DEED OF MUMBAI AND DETAILS OF MUTATION State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 88/166 List of beneficiaries of village Kanjhawala, seller and purchaser, sale deed of Mumbai and details of mutations S. Name of seller Name of purchaser Date of Date of Name of S.L.No. Name of Resi Indu No and exhibit No. sale deed muta-tion officials who in Karawai official who denti stria . & S.R. allowed register and accepted al l Office mutation date of demand of plot plot acceptance of plot demand of plot 1 Sh.Khajan Singh 1. Sh.Rameshar 16.09.97 M-219 V.K.Pandey, 127 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ s/o.Sh.Chhandlri R/o. 2. Ram chander Mumbai 03.10.97 Patwari 125 732 302 Kanjhawala thorugh GPA 3. Surender G.C.Sharma, 126 142/ 143/ in the name of Satish S/o.Khazan Singh CO 03.10.97 728 303 Bhardwaj S/o.Sis Ram 142/ 143/ vill. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-149 729 304
2. Sh.Khajan Singh Smt.Dham Pati 16.09.97 M-220 -do- 128 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ s/o.Sh.Chhandlri and W/o.Sh.Sair Ram Mumbai 03.10.97 03.10.97 56 82 A.Satish Bhardwaj Ex.No. 61/P-150
3. Ram Kumar S/o.Sh. Sh.Tilak Raj S/o. 17.07.98 M-334 -do- - G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Mukhtiar Singh Sh. Jaipal singh Mumbai 04.12.98 416 323 R/o.Kanjhawala & R/o.Kanjhawala A.Ram bir singh S/o.
Sh.Sukh Ram R/o. Ex.No. 61/P-151
Kanjahawala
4. Tarif Singh Dabas 1. surender singh 22.01.98 M-641 -do- 70 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/
S/o.Lt. Kanwar Singh 2. Virender Singh Mumbai 27.03.98 71 500 773
and Ajit Singh 3.Jitender Singh 72 142/ 143/
G.A.Satish Bhardwaj 4. Anil Kumar 73 229 772
R/o. Kanjhawala 5.Sunil Kumar s/o. 74 142/ 143/
Ajit Singh 75 494 771
6.Smt. Bir Mati 24.03.98 142/ 143/
W/o.Ajit Singh 596 769
142/ 143/
Ex.No. 61/P-152 94,1 768
2
142/
94,1
3
144/
80,8
1
144/
100
144/
103
5. Shish Ram 1. Satish Bhardwaj 30.07.98 M-121 -do- 725 G.C.Sharma 142- 143/
S/o. Kala GPA Balba 2. Sanjay Mumbai 28.03.97 05.08.97 255 84
Singh S/o. Tek Chand Bhardwaj S/o.
R/o. Kanjhawala Shish Ram
Ex.No. 61/P-153
6. Sh.Veer Bhan 1.Sanjay Bhardwaj 29.12.97 M-522 -do- - G.C.Sharma 142/
S/o.Sh.Khem Chand S/o. Dharam Pal Mumbai 19.01.98 86
R/o.Vijay Enclave, 2. Mange Ram
Palam, GPA, Devender S/o. Sh.Mehar
Kumar, S/o. Late Sh. Om singh R/o.
Prakash R/o. Kanjhawala Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-154 State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 89/166
7. Sh.Prithi Singh 1. Sher Singh 05.12.97 M-523 -do- 344 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o.Lt.Sh. Kirpa Ram 2. Niranjan singh Mumbai 19.01.98 345 10 513 R/o.Kanjhawal 3. Chand Ram 346 142/ 143/ GA Satish Bhardwaj 4. Satbir 347 69,7 512
5. Ms. Kamla 348 0 143/ W/o.Mahaveer 08.12.97 142/ 511 70, 143/ Ex.No. 61/P-155 256, 509 142/ 143/ 71 560 142/ 50,5 1, 526
8. Rama Nand S/o. 1. Satpal Dadbas 22.12.97 M-524 -do- 568 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Lt.Sh. Turti R/o. 2.Jagbir singh Mumbai 19.01.98 569 615 797 Kanjhawala GA Satish 3. Narender Kumar 570 142/ 143/ Bhardwan 4.Viredner Singh 571 446 796
5.Ajay Kumar 572 142/ 143/ Dabas S/o. Ram 26.12.97 616, 795 Nand 615 143/ 142/ 793 Ex.No. 61/P-156 552
9. Mehar singh 1. Om Devi 22.12.97 M-525 -do- 411 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o. Bhagwana W/o.Mehar Singh Mumbai 19.01.98 412 517 557 R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Ajay 413 142/ 143/ GA Satish Kumar 3.Arvind 414 518 558
4.Akshey 415 142/ 143/
5.Arun 26.12.97 610, 559 All s/o. Sh.Mehar 578 143/ singh 142/ 548 551 Ex.No. 61/P-157 142/ 558 142/ 610
10. Vidya wati w/o.Lt.Satbir 1.Satya Dev 10.12.97 M-527 -do- 558 G.C.Sharma 144/ 143/ Singh S/o.Sh.Tara Chand Mumbai 10.02.98 559 141 585 R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Ms. Babita 560 142/ 143/ GA Satish Kumar 3. Ms.Saveeta 561 861 871
4.Kumar Gaurav 26.12.97 144/ 143/ All S/o. D/o. Satya 140 305 Dev 142/ 143/ R/o. Kanjhawala 862 829 Ex.No. 61/P-158
11. Tara Chand 1.Smt.Vidya wati 10.12.97 M-528 -do- 554 G.C.Sharma S/o.Lt.Sh.Bhatu W/o. Lt.Sh.Satbir Mumbai 27.01.98 555 R/o. Kanjhawala Singh 556 GA Satish Kumar 2. Rambir Singh 557
3. Baljeet Singh 26.12.97
4. Kuldeep singh All S/o.lt.Sh. Tara Chand R/o. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-159
12. Ved Prakash S/o.Lt.Sh. 1.Smt. Sheela Devi 22.01.98 M-628 -do- 497 G.C.Sharma 144/ 143/ Bhagwana Dabas W/o. Ved Mumbai 24.02.98 495 490, 523, R/o. Kanjhawala Prakash 496 491, 524, State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 90/166 GA Satish Kumar 2. Kunal Janak 24.03.98 487, 525 S/o.Sh.Ved 486 Prakash R/o. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-160
13. Mange Ram S/o. Lt.Sh. 1. Rajender singh 22.01.98 M-629 -do- 685 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Prabhu 2. Vijay Singh Mumbai 24.02.98 688 831, 236, R/o. Kanjhawala 3. Jai Singh 687 830, 237, GA Satish Kumar 4. Kapoor singh 686 830, 228, All S/o. Sh. Mange 689 829, 229, Ram 23.01.98 829, 230
5. Jyoti D/o. 828, Mahender Singh 828 R/o. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-198
14. Uday singh S/o.Sh. 1. Jai Narayan 04.02.98 M-658 -do- 920 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Molar singh 2. Jaia Karan Mumbai 22.04.98 919 168, 70, R/o. Kanjhawala 3. Ram Narayan 921 169, 87,7 GA Satish Kumar All S/o.Sh.Udey 922 170, 1,88 Singh 21.04.98 711,
4. Mukesh S/o. 712, Satya Prakash 710 Ex.No. 61/P-161
15. Sewa singh & Sukhbir 1. Jay Singh 22.01.98 M-640 -do- 153 G.C.Sharma 144/ 143/ Singh S/o. Sh. Chandgi 2. Surender Singh Mumbai 05.03.98 155 495 724, Ram 3. Narender Singh 154 144/ 725, R/o. Kanjhawala All S/o. Sewa 56 83 726, GA Satish Kumar Singh 57 199 728, 4. Sajjan Kumar 24.03.98 142/ 729 S/o. Sukhbir 49
5. Smt. Prem Lata W/o.Sukhbir R/o. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-162
16. Chandra Wati W/o.Sh. 1. Balbir Singh 30.07.97 M-120 -do- 575 G.C.Sharma 144/ 143/ Hazri Lal S/o. Tek Chand Mumbai 28.08.97 05.08.97 31/2 423
2. Savitri Devi W/o. R/o. Kanjhawala 31/3 Jagjit Singh 142/ R/o. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-163 107 GA Satish Kumar 17 Ram chander 1. Ram Kaur W/o. 16.09.97 M-350 -do- 485 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o.Sh.Bhagwana R/o. Ram chander Mumbai 20.10.97 486 236, 482, Kanjhawala 2. Anil Kumar 487 237 483, GA Satish Kumar 3.Ashok Kr 488 142/ 519,
4. Sunil Kr. 489 238, 520,
5.Sanjeev Kr. 27.10.97 491, 521 All S/o.Ram 490, chander 413, Ex.No. 61/P-164 112, 436/ 2, 435, 458, 459
18. Kehar Singh S/o.Roop 1. Bhoop Singh 07.11.97 M-442 -do- 649 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 91/166 chand 2. Charan Singh Mumbai 18.12.97 647 147 299, R/o. Kanjhawala 3. Ram Bir singh 648 298, GA Satish Kumar 4.Surender Singh 646 297, All S/o. Kehar 10.11.97 296 Singh
19. Harnand Bhardwaj & Saroj Bala W/o. 07.11.97 M-443 -do- 726 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Bhism Bhardwaj Har Nand Mumbai 18.12.97 255 83 S/o. Lt.Lal Chand Bhardwaj 10.11.97 R/o. Kanjhawala GA Satish Kumar Ex.No. 61/P-165 20 Mukhtiar Singh 1. Kanta 23.10.97 M-444 -do- 820 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o.Amar Singh W/o.Vijender Mumbai 18.12.97 08.07.96 105 816 R/o. Kanjhawala Singh GA Satish Kumar 2. Bala W/o. Bani 821 Singh 822
3.Shanti W/o.Kulbir Singh 05.07.96 R/o. Kanjhawala
21. Chander Singh S/o. Arjun 1. Kanta W/o. 23.10.97 M-446 -do- 820 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ singh Vijender Singh Mumbai 18.12.97 08.07.96 288, 102 R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Bala W/o. Bani 725, 0 GA Satish Kumar Singh 821 142/ 143/
3. Shanti W/o. 822 725 817 Kulbir singh R/o. Kanjhawala 05.07.96
22. Devinder Kumar 1. Ganga Devi 22.12.97 M-529 -do- 327 G.C.Sharma 144/ 143/ Ravinder Kumar and W/o. Om Prakash Mumbai 27.01.98 26.12.97 47,2 59 Joginder Kr A// S/o. Sh. R/o. Kanjhawala 3 Om Prakash 142/ R/o. Kanjhawala 19 GA Satish Kumar
23. Hoshiyar singh 1. Jagbir Singh 23.10.97 M-530 -do- 399 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o.Lt.Shree Lal R/o. 2. Karan singh Mumbai 27.01.98 398 245 701 Kanjhawala 3.Hoshiyar Singh 142/ 143/ GA Satish Kumar All R/o. 08.12.97 245 700 Kanjhawala 246/ 1 Ex.No. 61/P-169
24. Santosh W/o.Ranbir 1. Kumari Puja 22.01.98 M-639 -do- 247 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Singh R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Kumari Sujata Mumbai 05.03.98 246 638, 880, GA Satish Kumar All d/o. Ranbir 639 879 singh 24.03.98 144/ R/o. Kanjhawala 129 Ex.No. 61/P-170 25 Basti Ram S/o.Amar 1.Smt. Prakasho 12.01.98 M-643 -do- 931 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Singh R/o. Kanjhawala Devi Mumbai 20.03.98 932 96, 710, GA Satish Kumar W/o. Basti Ram 933 754, 711,
2. Suresh 746, 712 3. sanjay 24.03.98 747 All S/o. Basti Ram Ex.No. 61/P-171
26. Dalel Singh S/o.Sh.Ram 1. dhano Devi 04.02.98 M-653 -do- 328 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Swaroop Singh w/o.Dalel Singh Mumbai 11.03.98 329 389 79,8 R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Gajender singh 330 388, 0,81 GA Satish Kumar S/o. Dalel 390/
3. Sharmila w/o. 24.03.98 144/ State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 92/166 Dalel 47, R/o. Kanjhawala 46 Ex.No. 61/P-172
27. Smt. Bala W/o. Bani 1.Priti D/o. Bani 04.02.98 M-655 -do- 817 G.C.Sharma 143/ Singh Singh Mumbai 11.03.98 816 102 R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Harish S/o. Bani 818 7 GA Satish Kumar Singh 819 143/ 3. Ravinder 815 102
4. Rupesh both 6, S/o. Vijender 13.04.98 102
5. Sumit S/o. 5, Kulbir Singh 966, R/o. Kanjhawala 967 Ex.No. 61/P-173
28. Sh.Vijender singh S/o. 1. Bramo Devi 04.12.98 M-656 -do- 745 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Sh. Pyare Lal w/o. Mukhtiyar Mumbai 11.03.98 744 497, 502, R/o. Kanjhawala, seller 2. Rishi pal s/o. 747 428, 501, Mukhtiyar singh, S/o. Mukhtiyar 746 429 500, Ratti Ram R/o. 3. Ved Vati W/o. 24.03.98 499 Kanjhawala Rishi Pal
4. Amit Kumar s/o. Rishi pal R/o. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-174
29. Nirmala D/o. Sh.Fateh Sh.Ravi kumar 22.01.98 M-660 -do- 529 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Singh S/o.Sh.Bhim Singh Mumbai 11.03.98 614 851 R/o. Kanjhawala R/o. Kanjhawala 15.12.97 GA Satish Kumar Ex.No. 61/P-175
30. Bal bir singh S/o. 1. Sushila 04.02.98 M-680 -do- 604 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Randhir Singh, W/o.Balbir Singh Mumbai 16.03.98 605 745, 306, Mahender Singh, 2. Ajay S/o.Balbir 606 744, 307, Mahavir Singh, Vijay singh 607 501 308, Singh S/o. Suraj Singh 3.Indra Wati W/o. 608 309, R/o. Kanjhawala Randhir singh 609 310, GA Satish Kumar 4. Vijay Kumar 610 311, S/o. Randhir Singh 611 312,
5.Sulochana W/o. 612 313, Mahinder 613 314, 6. Kusum Lata 315 D/o. Mahender Singh 24.03.98
7. Manoj Kumar S/o. Mahavir Singh
8. Vikash S/o.
Mahavir singh
9. Sunita W/o.
Vijay singh
10. Sachin Kumar S/o. Vijay singh Ex.No. 61/P-193
31. Sh.Vijay Singh Dabash 1.Mrs.Alka Singh 31.03.98 M-813 -do- 140 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o. Lt.Sh.Amar Singh W/o. Sh.Vijay Mumbai 22.04.98 141 855, 920, R/o. Kanjhawala Singh 142 856, 921
2.channo Devi 824 924 W/o.Sh. Amar 02.04.98 Singh 611 3.Rahool Dabas 612 S/o.Sh.Vijay Singh 613 State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 93/166 Ex.No. 61/P-194 24.03.98
32. Sh.Gyanender S/o.Sh. Dinesh Kumar 06.05.98 M-961 -do- - G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Ran Singh S/o.Raj Singh Mumbai 15.06.98 44,1 96,1 R/o. Kanjhawala Kanjhawala 5,18 032 GA B.S.Dabas Ex.No. 61/P-176
33. Narender Singh Smt.Parmeshwari 28.05.98 M-962 -do- - G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o.Sh.Ran Singh W/o.Raj Singh Mumbai 15.06.98 99 432 R/o. Kanjhawala R/o. Kanjhawala GA Rajender Singh Ex.No. 61/P-177
34. Sh.Naval Singh 1.Savitri Devi W/o 04.06.98 M-971 -- - G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o.Sh.RamSwaroop Jagdish Singh Mumbai 22.06.98 40 165 R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Jagbir Singh 142/ DA Devender S/o.Naval Singh 696, 3. Suresh 391 W/o.Lt.Sh.Birende r Singh R/o. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-178
35. Sh.chander bhan 1. Jagbir Singh 19.03.98 M-972 -- - G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o.Sh.Lehari singh S/o.Rattan Singh Mumbai 22.06.98 770 687 R/o. Kanjhawala VPO: Goyala GA Krishan singh Kalan, Distt, S/o.Sh.Mugal Chand R/o. Jhajjar, Haryana 72, J.K. Appartment,A-3, Paschim vihar, Delhi Ex.No. 61/P-179
36. Sh.Chander Bhan S/o.Sh. Sh.Bharat singh 19.03.98 M-973 -- - G.C.Sharma - -
Lehari singh S/o.Sh.Jai Singh Mumbai 22.06.98 R/o. Kanjhawala R/o. VPO Dichon GA Krishan singh Kalan, Najafgarh, S/o.Sh.Mugal chand R/o. Delhi 72, JK Appartment, A-3 Paschim vihar, Delhi Ex.No. 61/P-180
37. Jagbir Singh, Jai Prakash, 1.Sushil Prakash+4 22.01.98 M-681 -do- 217-221 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Umed Singh, Dalel s/o.Umed Singh Mumbai 16.03.98 222-226 680, 119, Singh, Ajit singh, Sukh 2. Surender +4 227-230 681, 118, bir Singh, S/o.Dalel Singh 235-238 580, 117, S/o.Lt.Sh.Rattan Singh 3.Virender +3 231-234 579, 116, R/o. Kanjhawala S/o.Ajit singh 239-241 577, 115, GA Satish Bhardwaj 4.Minakshi +3 576, 143/ S/o.Jagbir Singh 24.03.98 579, 124,
5.Jayant +3 578, 122, S/o.Sukhbir 142/ 125,
6.Sandeep +2 S/o. 678, 123, Jai Prakash 679, 143/ 665, 113, 664, 112, 665, 111, 664, 110, 667, 143/ 666, 144, 665, 145, 667, 146, 142/ 147 681, 143/ 682, 139, 670, 140, 669, 141, 670, 142, State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 94/166 669, 143/ 668, 135, 142/ 136, 575, 137 574, 593, 683, 684, 592, 142/ 682, 683, 588, 576, 575, 589, 142/ 684, 685, 590, 591
38. Sh.Dharambir Singh, 1.Smt.Santosh 24.04.98 M-837 -- 942 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ RandhirSingh, Krishan W/o.Ajit Singh Mumbai 12.05.98 943 567, 953, Kumar, s/o. Narian 2.Smt.Nilam 946 477, 956, Singh, Zile singh, W/o.Jagdish 941 474, 951, S/o.Sh.Kure Ram, ajit chander 944 475, 888, Singh, Jagdush Chander, 3.Smt. Wimlesh 945 568, 954, joginder Singh S/o. Zile W/o.Joginder 947 560, 886, Singh R/o. Kanjhawala Singh 476 889 GA Jai Singh S/o.Naraian 4.Pervash S/o.Ajit 22.04.98 Singh Singh
5.Ganga Devi W/o. Zile Singh
6. Master Depender S/o.Jagdish Chander
7. Manish S/o.
Joginder Singh R/o. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-182
39. Sh.Dharamvir Singh, 1.Smt.Sushila 22.04.98 M-818 -do- 934 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Ranvir Singh, Krishan Devi W/o.Sh.Jai Mumbai 12.05.98 935 250, 100 Kumar S/o.Sh.Narain Singh 936 251, 2, singh, zile singh 2. Smt.Kamlesh 937 252, 999, S/o.Sh.Kure Ram, Ajit W/o.Sh.Dharam 939 249, 995, singh, Jagdish chander, bir 938 510, 993, Joginder singh, s/o.Zile 3.Smt.diksha 940 208, 100 Singh W/o.Sh.Randhir 251 1, R/o. Kanjhawala Singh 22.04.98 997, GA Jai Singh S/o. 4. Smt.Pushpa 998 Nariana Singh W/o. Krishan Kumar
5.Smt.Gindori Devi W/o.Sgh.Narain Singh
6. Smt. Phool wati W/o.Sh.Narain Singh
7. Narain Singh S/o.Sh.Kure Ram R/o. Kanjhawala State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 95/166 Ex.No. 61/P-183
40. Rohtash, Raj Singh, 1.Krishan Kr 29.12.97 M-526 -do- 90 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Dalbir Singh, Jaipal 2.Sunil Kumar all Mumbai 27.01.98 89 320, 361, Singh, S/o. Lt.Maan S/o. Rohtash Singh 92 130, 362, Singh R/o. Kanjhawala 3. Pawan Kr. 91 341, 364, GA Satish bhardwaj 4. Navneet Kumar 96 113, 102 Both S/o. Raj 95 344, 2, Singh 93 113, 358,
5. Urmila 94 345 , 359 D/o.Dalbir Singh 30.12.97 88, ,367
6.Deepak 62 , 368 S/o.Dalbir Singh 22.04.98 299,
7. Sumeetra Devi 300 , W/o. Jai Pal singh 130 ,
8. Sachin Dabas 86, S/o. Jai Pal Singh 300 Ex.61/P-195
41. Kehri Singh S/o. 1.Raghbir Singh 22.01.98 M-638 -do- 119 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Bisghamber Singh 2.Jai Narayan Mumbai 05.03.98 120 258, 151, R/o. Kanjhawala 3.Dharam Pal 121 299, 190 GA Satish Bhardwaj 4.Nihal Chand All 122 322, ,189 S/o.Kehri singh 123 324, ,188
5.Stm./Mukesh 325 , ,10 W/o.Devinder 23.01.98 292 Singh R/o.
Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-184
42. Nanak Chand S/o.Prabhu 1.krishan chand 27.03.98 M-748 -do- 449 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Jai Kumar s/o Mumbai 15.04.98 448 529, 565, GA Kuldeep Singh s/o. Nanak Chand, 450 530, 566, Nanak chand 3.Smt.Permila 68/1 567 W/o. Kuldeep 0 Singh R/o.
Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-185
43. Vijay singh S/o. Umed 1.Naresh Devi 04.02.98 M-659 -do- 360 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ singh R/o. Kanjhawala w/o. Vijay Singh Mumbai 11.03.98 361 522, 487 Ga Vijender 2.Deepak 142/ 143/ S/o.Vijay Singh 24.03.98 525 486 R/o. Kanjhawala GA Satish Bhardwaj Ex.No. 61/P-186
44. Ishwar singh 1. Murty 26.11.97 M-136 / -do- 918 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ S/o.Ram Kala W/o.Ishwar singh Mumbai A/CO 915 843 73 R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Raj Mirkesh 14.04.98 916 142/ 143/ S/o. Ishwar Singh 917 836 91
3. Satpal All s/o. 142/ 143/ Ishwar Singh 08.12.97 839 92 Ex.No. 61/P-197 142/ 143/ 840 93 142/ 841 142/ 837 State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 96/166
45. Sultan Singh S/o. Bhartu 1. Gaurav S/o. 04.02.98 M-683 -do- 245 G.C.Sharma - - R/o. Kanjhawala Ranbir Singh Mumbai 16.03.98 247 GA Vijender 2.Pooja 246
3. Sujaata D/o.Ranbir Singh 24.03.98
4. Prem Singh S/o.Sultan Singh 758
5. Neelam W/o. 13.04.98 Prem Singh 6. bhagwan S/o. 757 Rai Singh 248 7. Geeta W/o 249 Bhagwan 24.03.98 R/o. Kanjhawala Ex.No. 61/P-187
46. Sh.Bhagwana S/o. 1. Om Prakash 04.02.98 M-652 -do- 366 G.C.Sharma 142/ 143/ Lakshman R/o. S/o. Bhagwana Mumbai 11.03.98 369 619, 628 Kanjhawala 2. Rajesh S/o. Om 368 620 143/ GA vijender S/o. Pyare Prakash 370 142/ 600 lal 3. Ram Kaur w/o. 367 620, 143/ Om Prakash 372 621 601
4. Reena 371 143/ W/o.Rajesh 373 142/ 602
5. Dharam Pal 621, 143/ S/o.Bhagwana 24.03.98 622 603
6.Subhash S/o. 142/ 143/ Dharampal 622, 607
7. Satbir S/o. 623 143/ Dharam Pal 142/ 606
8.Kitabo W/o. 548 143/ Dharam Pal 142/ 605 Ex.No. 61/P-188 548, 547 142/ 445, 546 142/ 546, 445
47. Zile Singh S/o.Bhagwana 1.Khajan singh 04.02.98 M-654 -do- 293 G.C.Sharma - -
R/o. Kanjhawala 2. Kaptan Singh Mumbai 11.03.98 292
GA Vijender S/o. Pyare 3. Silak Ram 291
Lal 4. Naresh Kumar 290
all s/o.Zile Singh
Ex.No. 61/P-189 24.03.98
48. Jagjeet singh, Hem 1. Indrawati W/o. 26.11.97 M-531 -do- 583 G.C.Sharma - -
chand, JagbirSingh, Jagjeet singh Mumbai 27.01.98 08.12.97
Krishan Chander 2. Kaushalya Devi s/o. Hazari, R/o. W/o. Hem chander 580 Kanjhawala 3. Prakashi W/o. 01.12.97 Jagbir GA Satish Bhardwaj 4. Anita W/o. 582 Krishan Chander 581 08.12.97 Ex.No. 61/P-190
49. Satpal chaudhary 1. Smt. Omwati 07.11.97 M-520 -do- 84 G.C.Sharma - - S/o. Ran Singh W/o. AjitSingh Mumbai 27.01.98 R/o. Majlish Park R/o. Kanjhawala 02.12.97 Ex.No. 61/P-191
50. Dharam Pal S/o. Baljeet 1.Raj Kumar 26.11.97 M-542 -do- 267 Sh.G.C.Shar - -
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 97/166 S/o. Khaliya, Chhoto & 2. Balwan Singh Mumbai 27.02.98 266 ma Ram Pyari D/o. Chhano 3.Azad Singh 265 R/o. Kanjhawala 4. Ram Kanwar all 263 s/o. Kartar Singh 259 GA Satish Bhardwaj S/o. 5. Sardari Sir Ram R/o. Kanjhawala 6. Hanumant all 26.12.97 s/o. Tulsi 7. Virender 256 8. Joginder 268
9.Surender all S/o. 26.12.97 Balbir Singh 10. Ved 269
11. Siri Krishan all 08.12.97 s/o. Shera 12. Ashok 270
13. Ajay all s/o. 26.12.97 Surat Singh 14. Ravinder s/o. 263 Ram chander 262 R/o. Kanjhawala 260 30.03.98 261 30.03.98 264 30.03.98 State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 98/166 CASE FIR NO. 4/01 U/S 7/13 POC ACT & 120-B, P.S. ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH GNCT OF DELHI.
LIST OF BENEFICIARIES OF VILLAGE POOTH KHURD, SELLER & PURCHASER, SALE DEED OF MUMBAI AND DETAILS OF MUTATION S. Name of Name of the Purchaser Date of Date of Name of Officials Date of Name of Plot No Sale Mutation Demand official No. Deeds & Accepte Accepted Allo S.R. d Demand tted Office
1. Pankaj Jain S/o- Sh. Smt. Sunita, W/o- Raj 15.7.98 M-101/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 849/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Hem Chand, Vinod Kumar, R/o- Pooth Mumbai 18.8.98 Dharma Nand, 23.2.98 374, Kumar S/o- Deewan Khurd. Patwari 154/ Chand R/o- 42/29, 375, Shakti Nagar, Delhi 154/ 877 Through GPA in the name of Sh. Ranbir 155/ Singh Dabas, S/o- Sita 444 Ram, R/o- Sultan pur, Dabas,Delhi
2. Pankaj Jain, S/o- Sh. Raj Kumar S/o- Ram 15.7.98 M-102/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 922/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Hem Chand, Vinod Niwas R/o- Pooth Mumbai 18.8.98 Dharma Nand, 23.9.98 374, Kumar S/o- Deewan Khurd Patwari 375/ Chand 877 R/o- 42/29, Shakti Ex.PW-65/Y-10 Nagar, Delhi 155/ 444 Through GPA in the name of Sh. Ranbir Singh Dabas, S/o- Sita Ram, R/o- Sultan pur, Dabas,Delhi
3. Smt. Raj Bala, W/o- Anil Kumar S/o- Sh. 15.7.98 M-104/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 930/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Bhagwan Singh, R/o- Khazan Singh Mumbai 21.8.98 Dharma Nand, 23.9.98 784 Chand Pur Dabas, Patwari Delhi R/o- Pooth Khurd 155/ 439 Through GPA in the Ex.PW-65/Y-11 name of Sh. Ranbir Singh Dabas, S/o- Sita Ram, R/o- Sultan pur, Dabas,Delhi
4. Sarwan Kumar S/o- Smt. Chandrawati W/o- 15.7.98 M-105/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 921/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Sh. Diwan Chand Sh. Raj singh Mumbai 21.8.98 Dharma Nand, 23.9.98 461 Atul Jain S/o- Sh. R/o- Pooth Khurd Patwari 154/ Hem Chand Pankaj Ex.PW-65/Y-12 462 Jain S/o- Sh. Hem Chand Vinod Kr. 155/ Diwan Chand 447 R/o- 24/29, Shakti Nagar, Delhi Through GPA in the name of Sh. Ranbir Singh Dabas, S/o- Sita Ram, R/o- Sultan pur, Dabas,Delhi
5. Ram Kumar Gupta Sh. Devi Sahay Gupta 17.7.98 M-106/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 902/ G.C. Sharma 154/ (HUF) S/o- Lt. Sh. Gyani Ram Mumbai 21.8.98 Dharma Nand, 20.7.98 387 S/o- Lt. Ghasi Ram, R/o- 384, Pooth Khurd Patwari R/o- A-68, Rajauri Ex.PW-65/Y-13 155/ State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 99/166 Garden, New Delhi 84
6. Ram Kumar Gupta Smt. Sunita Devi, W/o- 17.7.98 M-108/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 900/ G.C. Sharma 154/ (HUF) Naresh Aggarwal, R/o- Mumbai 26.8.98 Dharma Nand, 20.7.98 427 S/o- Lt. Ghasi Ram, 383, Pooth Khurd Patwari R/o- A-68, Rajauri 136/ Garden, New Delhi Ex.PW-65/Y-15 130
7. Ram Kumar Gupta Sh. Jagdish Prasad 17.7.98 M-109/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 998/ G.C. Sharma 154/ (HUF) Gupta, S/o- Sh. Devi Mumbai 26.8.98 Dharma Nand, 20.7.98 407 S/o- Lt. Ghasi Ram, Sahay Gupta R/o- 384, Patwari R/o- A-68, Rajauri Pooth Khurd 156/ Garden, New Delhi Ex.PW-65/Y-16 176
8. Smt. Sunita, W/o- Sh. Bimla, W/o- Sh. Deva 14.9.98 M-275/ Ishwar Singh, CO, 860/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Rajesh R/o- Pooth Nand, R/o- Pooth Mumbai 27.10.98 Lalit kumar, 10.7.98 23, Khurd Khurd, Delhi Patwari 154/ 24 Through GPA in the name of Sh. Sat Pal 155/ Singh, S/o- Sh. 410 Chattar Singh, R/o- Sultan Pur Dabas.
9. Sh. Ombir, S/o- Sh. Smt. Saraswati, W/o- 20.5.98 M-919/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 765/ G.C. Sharma 154/ S.S. Rana, R/o- Sh. Jage Ram, R/o- Mumbai 12.6.98 Dharma Nand, 20.5.98 460, Mukhmail Pur, Delhi Pooth Khurd Patwari 155/ Ex.PW-65/Y-25 402
10. Sh. Ombir, S/o- Sh. Smt. Saraswati, W/o- 20.5.98 M-920/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 767/ G.C. Sharma 154/ S.S. Rana, R/o- Sh. Jage Ram, R/o- Mumbai 12.6.98 Dharma Nand, 20.5.98 480, Mukhmail Pur, Delhi Pooth Khurd Patwari 155/ 343
11. Sh. Ombir, S/o- Sh. Balbir Singh, S/o- Sh. 20.5.98 M-921/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 766/ G.C. Sharma 154/ S.S. Rana, R/o- Jage Ram, R/o- Pooth Mumbai 12.6.98 Dharma Nand, 20.5.98 22, Mukhmail Pur, Delhi Khurd Patwari 154/ 23, Ex.PW-65/Y-27 154/ 24
12. Sh. Raghubir Singh, 1. Mukesh kumar 20.5.98 M-1013/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 950/951/ G.C. Sharma 154/ S/o- Sh. Daya 2. Ravinder Kumar, S/o- Mumbai 3.7.98 Dharma Nand, 5.5.99 491, Krishnan, R/o- Pooth Sh. Raghubir Singh, Patwari 154/ Khurd R/o- 345, Pooth Khurd 90, 154/ Through GPA in the 862 name of Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, S/o- Sh. Sis 156/ Ram, R/o- Khanjawala 152
13. Sh. Hawa Singh, S/o- Smt. Devki Devi, W/o- 10.6.98 M-1040/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 871/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Sh. Jage Ram, R/o- Daya Nand, R/o- Pooth Mumbai 3.7.98 Dharma Nand, 22.6..98 565, Pooth Khurd Khurd Patwari 154/ 566 Through GPA in the 154/ name of Sh. Madan 917 Kumar, S/o- Sh. 514/ Hukam Chand, R/o- 929 Ghoga Delhi State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 100/166 156/ 78
14. Sh. Partap Singh, S/o- Smt. Kamlesh Devi, 10.6.98 M-1041/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 872/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Sh. Raghubir Singh, W/o-Sarwan Kumar, Mumbai 3.7.98 Dharma Nand, 22.6.98 471, R/o- Pooth Khurd Patwari Through GPA in the 156/ name of Sh. Satish 81 Bhardwaj, S/o- Sh. Sis Ram, R/o- Khanjawala
15. Sh. Hawa Singh, S/o- Smt. Kasturi Devi, W/o- 10.6.98 M-1042/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 873/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Sh. Jage Ram, R/o- Inder mal, R/o- Pooth Mumbai 3.7.98 Dharma Nand, 22.6..98 20,2 Pooth Khurd Khurd Patwari 1 Through GPA in the Ex.PW-65/Y-30 name of Sh. Madan 156/ Kumar, S/o- Sh. 79 Hukam Chand, R/o-
Ghoga Delhi
16. Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Smt. Shanti, W/o- 10.6.98 M-1043/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 875/ G.C. Sharma 154/ S/o- Sh. Jage Ram, Jainarain, R/o- Pooth Mumbai 3.7.98 Dharma Nand, 22.6..98 303 R/o- Pooth Khurd Khurd Patwari Through GPA in the Ex.PW-65/Y-31 156/ name of Sh. Madan 194 Kumar, S/o- Sh. s Hukam Chand, R/o-
Ghoga Delhi
17. Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Smt. Sunita, W/o- 10.6.98 M-1044/ G.C. Sharma, CO, 874/ G.C. Sharma S/o- Sh. Jage Ram, Rajesh, R/o- Pooth Mumbai 3.7.98 Daya Nand, 22.6..98 R/o- Pooth Khurd Khurd Patwari Through GPA in the Ex.PW-65/Y-32 name of Sh. Madan Kumar, S/o- Sh.
Hukam Chand, R/o-
Ghoga Delhi
18. Sh. Partap Singh, S/o- Smt. Rajkumari, W/o- 10.6.98 M-1047/ G.C. Sharma, CO, 870/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Sh. Raghubir Singh, Govind Gaud, R/o- Mumbai 3.7.98 Daya Nand, 22.6..98 21, Pooth Khurd Patwari 154/ Through GPA in the 22 name of Sh. Madan Kumar, S/o- Sh.
Hukam Chand, R/o- 156/ Ghoga Delhi 80 19. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sh. Mahender Singh, 17.7.98 M-65/98- S.K. Sharma, CO, G.C. Sharma 154/ S/o- Sh. Om Prakash, S/o- Raj Singh, R/o- Mumbai 99/ Dharma Nand, 469 R/o- Vill. Bidhalan, 269, Pooth Khurd 2.9.98 Patwari Distt. Sonipat, Haryana 155/ 33 Through GPA in the name of Sh. Dharambir, S/o- Sh. Sube Singh, R/o- Darya Pur Kalan 20. Sh. Jage Ram@ Jage, 1. Rajinder Singh 20.7.98 M-93/98- S.K. Sharma, CO, 909/910/ G.C. Sharma 154/ S/o- Chandgi Ram, 2. Dalbir Singh Mumbai 99/ Dharma Nand, 908/907/ 109 R/o- Pooth Khurd 3. Balwan Singh 2.9.98 Patwari 906 154/ 4. Krishan kr. 110 5. Perveen kr. 21.7.98 154/ State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 101/166 All S/o- Jage Ram 111 R/o- Pooth Khurd 156/ Ex.PW-65/Y-1 57 156/ 58 156/ 59 156/ 60 156/ 61 156/ 62 21. Sh. Daya Nand, S/o- 1. Raj Singh 20.7.98 M-94/98- S.K. Sharma, CO, 911/912 G.C. Sharma 154/ Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, 2.Ajit Singh Mumbai 99/ Dharma Nand, 913/914 646 R/o- Pooth Khurd 3. Magan Singh 14.8.98 Patwari 154/ 4. Samunder Singh. 21.7.98 639 154/ All S/o- Daya Nand 649 154/ Ex.PW-65/Y-2 650 156/ 53 156/ 54 156/ 55 156/ 56 22. Sh. Daryao Singh, 1. Naresh Kumar 20.7.98 M-95/98- S.K. Sharma, CO, 915/916 G.C. Sharma 154/ S/o- Sh. Nandu, R/o- 2.Smt. Phool wati, W/o- Mumbai 99/ Dharma Nand, 917/918 549 Pooth Khurd Sukhbir Singh 14.8.98 Patwari 154/ 3. Ravinder S/o- Laxmi 21.7.98 536 Chand 154/ Through GPA in the 4. Roshni, W/o- Lakhmi 560 name of Sh. Chand, R/o- Pooth 154/ Devanand, S/o- Lt. Sh. khurd 572 Tek Chand, R/o- 154/ Pooth Khurd Ex.PW-65/Y-3 576 154/ 623 156/ 281 156/ 282 156/ 283, 284 23. Sh. Bhagwan Singh Sh. Trilok Chand, S/o- 15.7.98 M-10/98- S.K. Sharma, CO, 929/ G.C. Sharma 154/ Dabas, S/o- Sh. Khajan Singh, R/o- Vill. Mumbai 99/ Dharma Nand, 23.2.98 782 Mukhtiyar Singh, R/o- Pooth Khurd Patwari 154/ Chand pur Dabas & 18.8.98 613 Suresh Chand Garg, Ex.PW-65/Y-8 S/o- Shyam Sunder 155/ Garg, C-9/19, West 437 Enclave, Pitam pura Through GPA in the name of Sh. Rajender Singh Sehrawat, S/o- Sh. S.C. Sehrawat, State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 102/166 R/o- Darya Pur, Delhi- 39 24. Ram Kumar Gupta Smt. Krishna Devi, 17.7.98 M-110/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 901/ G.C. Sharma 154/ (HUF) W/o- Lalchand, R/o- Mumbai 98-99 Dharma Nand, 20.7.98 419 S/o- Lt. Ghasi Ram, 383, Pooth Khurd Patwari R/o- A-68, Rajauri Ex.PW-65/Y-17 26.8.98 Garden, New Delhi 156/ 181 25. Ram Kumar Gupta Smt. Kamleh Devi, 17.7.98 M-112/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 904/ G.C. Sharma 154/ (HUF) W/o- Lalchand, R/o- Mumbai 98-99 Dharma Nand, 20.7.98 388 S/o- Lt. Ghasi Ram, 383, Pooth Khurd Patwari R/o- A-68, Rajauri 26.8.98 Garden, New Delhi 156/ 388 26. Ram Kumar Gupta Smt. Sumitra Devi, 17.7.98 M-113/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 897/ G.C. Sharma 154/ (HUF) W/o- Jagdish Gupta, Mumbai 98-99 Dharma Nand, 20.7.98 406 S/o- Lt. Ghasi Ram, R/o- 384, Pooth Khurd Patwari R/o- A-68, Rajauri Ex.PW-65/Y-20 26.8.98 Garden, New Delhi 156/ 414 27. Ram Kumar Gupta Lal Chand, S/o- Lt. Sh. 17.7.98 M-114/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 905/ G.C. Sharma 154/ (HUF) Gyani Ram, R/o- 384, Mumbai 98-99 Dharma Nand, 20.7.98 409 S/o- Lt. Ghasi Ram, Pooth Khurd Patwari R/o- A-68, Rajauri Ex.PW-65/Y-21 26.8.98 Garden, New Delhi 156/ 322 28. Ram Kumar Gupta Smt. Sona Devi, W/o- 17.7.98 M-111/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 903/ G.C. Sharma (HUF) Lt. Sh. Rishi Prakash, Mumbai 98-99 Dharma Nand, 20.7.98 S/o- Lt. Ghasi Ram, R/o- 383, Pooth Khurd Patwari R/o- A-68, Rajauri Ex.PW-65/Y-18 26.8.98 Garden, New Delhi 29. Sh. Hawa Singh, S/o- Surender Kumar, S/o- 10.6.98 M-1045/ G.C. Sharma, CO, Sh. Jage Ram, R/o- Raje Ram, R/o- 2070, Mumbai 97-98 Daya Nand Pooth Khurd Narela Mandi, Delhi 13.7.98 Saroha, Patwari Through GPA in the Ex.PW-65/Y-33 name of Sh. Madan Kumar, S/o- Sh. Hukam Chand, R/o- Ghoga Delhi 30. Sh. Partap Singh, S/o- Ravinder Kumar S/o- 10.6.98 M-1046/ G.C. Sharma, CO, Sh. Raghubir Singh, Hari Kishan, R/o- 2070, Mumbai 97-98 Daya Nand, Narela Mandi, Delhi 13.7.98 Patwari Through GPA in the name of Sh. Madan Ex.PW-65/Y-34 Kumar, S/o- Sh. Hukam Chand, R/o- Ghoga Delhi 31. Sh. Sarwan kumar Smt. Kavita, W/o- 15.7.98 M-96/ S.K. Sharma, CO, 928 G.C. Sharma 353 Jain, S/o- Sh. Diwan Narender, R/o- Pooth Mumbai 98-99 Dharma Nand, 859 Chand, Atul Jain, S/o- Khurd Patwari 23.2.98 383 Hem Chand, R/o- 18.8.99 54 Shakti nagar Ex.PW-65/Y-4 446 Through GPA in the name of Sh. Ranbir Singh Dabas, S/o- Sh. Sita Ram, R/o- Sultan Pur, Dabas, Delhi 32. Sher Singh 1. Sh. Raj Singh 22.7.98 M-209 S.K. Sharma, CO, 936 Ishwar 834 2. Sh. Jai kumar Mumbai 98-99 Dharma Nand, 937 Singh 835 State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 103/166 3.Sh. Virender Singh 23.7.99 Patwari 939 836 938 837 All S/o- Sh. Sher Singh 879 4. Smt. Anup Kaur 16.03.99 728 W/o- Sher Singh 85 850 Ex.PW-55/H46 33. Naraian Singh S/o 1. Phool Kawar 22.7.98 M-210 S.K. Sharma, CO, 942 Ishwar 837 .Mange RamanR/o. 2.Vijay Kumar Mumbai 98-99 Dharma Nand, 940 Singh 838 Pooth Khurd, Delhi 3. Sanjay Singh 23.7.99 Patwari 941 839 Through GPA 4. Sjuresh Dabdas 944 840 inthename of Ram S/o. Narain Singh 943 841 Roop S/o. Bhagwana 5. Saheb Kaur 786 R/o. Pooth Khurd W/o. Narain Singh 16.03.98 Ex.PW-55/H51 34. Ram Roop S/o. 1. Devender Singh 12.7.98 M-221 S.K. Sharma, CO, Bhagwana R/o. Pooth 2.Narender Singh Mumbai Dharma Nand, 154/ Khurd 3. jitender Singh 23.9.98 Patwari 23,2 4. Vijender Singh 4, All S/o. Ram Roop 15/, 5. Smt. Savitri Devi 1,15 W/o. Ram Roop 154/ 15/2 156/ 67 35 Lal chand S/o. Hem Sh. Sidharth Gupta 15.7.98 M-99/98- S.K. Sharma, CO, 924/23.0 154/
Raj R/o. C-131 Ashok S/o. Madan Lal Gupta, Mumbai 99 Dharma Nand, 2. 271 Vihar R/o. Pooth Khurd Patwari 98 155/ Through GPA 18.08.98 441 inthename of Sh. Ex.PW-65/Y-7 Ranbir Singh Dabas S/o. Sita Ram R/o.
Sultan pur, Dabas Delhi.
36. Ram Kumar Gupta Mukesh Aggarwal 17.7.98 M-107 S.K. Sharma, CO, 899/20.0 G.C.Sharma R/o. A-68, Rajouri S/o.Sh.Rishi Prakash Mumbai Dharma Nand, 7.98 154/ Garden, Delhi. R/ol. 383, Pooth Khurd. 26.8..98 Patwari 410 Ex.PW-65/Y-14 155/ 321
37. Suresh Chand Garg Anil Kumar S/o. Khajan 15.7.98 M-97 98- S.K. Sharma, CO, SL NO. G.C.Sharma S/o.Shyam Sunder Singh Mumbai 99 Dharma Nand, 3 Garg, C-9/19, R/o. Pooth Khurd 18.08.98 Patwari WestEnclave, Pitam Pura Ex.PW-65/Y-5 Through GPA inthename of Sh.
Ranbir Singh Dabas S/o. Sita Ram R/o.
Sultan pur, Dabas Delhi.
38. Mukesh Jain S/o.Suraj Smt. Seema Devi W/o. 15.7.98 M-98 S.K. Sharma, CO, 923 G.C.Sharma 154/ Prakash R/o. 5916, Ashok Gupta Mumbai 98-99 Dharma Nand, 23.02.98 558 Basti Harphool R/o. Pooth Khurd 18.08.98 Patwari 155/ Singhm Delhi 442 Through GPA in the Ex.PW-65/Y-6 name of Sh. Ranbir State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 104/166 Singh Dabas S/o. Sita Ram R/o. Sultan pur, Dabas Delhi.
These lists are in accordance with the record of consolidation, repartition and mutation which proves the allotment of the plots to the beneficiaries in village Pooth khurd and Kanjhawla.
35.7 Sanction for prosecution U/s 19 of the Act of the accused persons has been proved by the prosecution in the following manner:-
Dharmanand : by PW 13 Sh.S.R.Kataria, vide Ex.PW13/D and Ex.PW69/A Dayanand Saroha: by PW 13 Sh.S.R.Kataria, vide Ex.PW13/F and Ex.PW69/B Lalit Kumar Rana: by PW 28 vide Ex. PW28/A Ishwar Singh by PW33 Sh. Sh. Raghunathan vide Ex. PW33/A Suresh Chander by by PW33 Sh. Sh.
Raghunathan vide Ex. PW33/B Vinod Kumar Pandey by PW68 Ms. Achla Singh vide Ex. PW68/A 35.8 Therefore, in view of the testimony of these witness it is established that original record has State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 105/166 been produced by the prosecution during the examination of witness. Witness has compared the record furnished in the file from the original record.
Therefore, there remains no doubt against the authenticity of the record and same has been proved in accordance with Indian Evidence Act. Hence, averment of Ld. Defence counsel is unfounded and baseless.
36). It is argued that sale deed registered at Mumbai has not been proved. It is evident from the record produced by PW61, PW55 and PW65 where the entire file alongwith the application and copy of sale deed has been proved and the entry in pursuance of the same in the revenue record is also proved. Therefore, even if the original of sale deed not produced, not going to affect the case of prosecution in this regard.
PW52 Sh. V.D. Ponkshe was working as Sub Registrar, Mumbai and proved the list and letters pertains to the Registration of the sale deed of Property of Kanjhawla and Pooth Khurd of Delhi registered in Mumbai vide Ex. PW52/A and Ex. PW52/B. Therefore, the averment of Ld. Counsel about non production of original documents is unfounded and baseless.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 106/166
37). The prosecution has proved the entire record by producing the original from the concerned revenue department. So far as involvement of accused persons during the proceedings of consolidation and mutation is to be seen in the context of the documents produced by the prosecution in evidence. It is to be seen whether the accused persons were involved during these proceedings and what were their role in the same. I) Accused G.C. Sharma:- He was posted as Consolidation Officer of village Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla and his signature has been proved on the document in the following manner:-
a) Witness PW61 has identified the signature of accused G.C. Sharma on demand application Ex.
PW61/P1 to PW61/P140. These were the demand applications which were marked by accused G.C. Sharma to the Halqa Patwari. These documents were pertains to village Kanjhawla. His signatures also appear on the karwai register chakbandi Ex. PW61/P141 to Ex. PW61/146 and Ex. PW61/P147. His signature also proved on chak bandi register register Ex. PW61/199 to Ex. PW61/202 and Ex.PW61/P146. His signature also proved on chakbandi register Ex. PW61/199 to Ex. PW61/P202.
That document is the certified copy of State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 107/166 consolidation scheme and claim form of SOC of village Kanjhawla. Ex. PW61/P147 also bears his signatures. His signature was also proved on mutation file of village Kanjhawla Ex. PW61/149 to Ex. PW61/P198.
His signature is also proved by PW65 pertains to demand application of village Pooth Khurd which has been exhibited as Ex. PW55/H1 to Ex.PW55/H14; Ex.PW55/H16 to H25 Ex. PW55/H32 to PW55/H34, PW55/H35, PW55/H38, PW55/H39 and PW55/H41..
ii) Ishwar Singh - He was posted as ACO in village Pooth Khurd. PW65 Ombir Singh has identified the signatures of accused Ishwar Singh on demand applications Ex. PW55/H12, PW55/H13, Ex. PW55/H- 43 and Ex. PW55/H-51.
This witness also identified the signatures of accused Ishwar Singh on the re-partition proceedings. The document regarding the same is ex. PW55/D. This document is record pertaining to regulation No.27 of village Pooth Khurd w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.5.99 of repartition.
iii) Suresh Chandra- He was posted as ACO/Naib Tehsildar of village Poothkhurd/Kanjhawla. PW65 Ombir Singh also identified the signature of accused Suresh Chandra. Ex. PW55/D is entry regarding repartition proceedings U/s 21(1) (register karwai chakbandi vill. Pooth khurd). Same bears State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 108/166 signatures of accused Suresh Chandra, vide this register document in repartition proceedings name of right holder as allottee of plots was entered.
iv) Dharma Nand:- He was posted as Patwari of village Poothkhurd. His signatures has been identified by PW65 are on each of P1 form in the mutation file of village Pooth Khurd which has been exhibited as Ex.PW65/Y1 to Ex.PW65/Y10 and Ex. PW65/Y11 to Ex.PW65/21. PW65/Y22 to PW65/Y24, PW65/Y25 to PW65/Y27 and PW65/Y28 and Ex. PW65/Y36.
v) Vinod Kumar Pandey:- He was posted as Patwari of village Poothkhurd. PW61 Satya Narayan identified his signatures being the patwari on the mutation files of village Kanjhawla on Ex. PW61/149 to Ex. PW61/P198.
vi) Dayanand was posted as patwari of village Poothkhurd. PW65 Ombir Singh has identified his signatures on each P1 form Ex. PW65/Y9 to Ex. PW65/Y-35.
vii) Lalit Kumar Rana :- His signatures is not found on any of the document.
Witnesses identified their signatures as they have seen the accused person writing and signing in the office where they were also posted. Even accused persons has not disputed their signatures on these official record. Therefore signatures of accused persons has been proved. Signatures of accused G.C. State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 109/166 Sharma is proved being the Consilidation Officer of village Kanjhawla and Poothkhurd. Signature of Ishwar Singh has been proved being the C.O of village Pooth Khurd. Signature of accused Subhash chand has been proved in his capacity of Addl. Consolication Officer of village Poothkhurd. Signature of Dharma Nand and Dayanand proved being the patwari of village Pooth Khurd. Signature of Vinod Kumar Pandey proved in his capacity as Patwari of Kanjhawla.
38). It is contended by Ld. Defence counsel that the inquiry report Ex.PW20/B stating the sanction of mutation was violative of provisions of section 7 and 8 of East Punjab Holding Act 1948 is wrong, since for the operation of provisions of section 7 and section 8, there must be a notification U/s 3 of the Consolidation Act. The prosecution has not produced any such notification. In the absence of such notification there is no bar in transferring the ownership or right occupancy.
On this point, this court is of the view that the present act "The East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948" has been designed to consolidate holding in village compulsorily and to avoid fragmentation of holdings. The prime object of the Act is to stop the fragments State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 110/166 of the lands so that cultivation can be carried out profitably. Therefore, time to time state government determine under section 5 as the minimum area necessary for profitable cultivation in any particular notified area, such area is regarded as "standard area". The fragments of land less than the determined standard area are prohibited in the notified estate.
In the present case, Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla were the estate notified U/s 3 of the Act for the purpose of consolidation, inquiry under section was made in those estates to identify the area which could be cultivated profitably as a separate plot. Publication was made as to minimum area in these two estates provisionally settled for declaring standard area. After inviting objections finally standard area was determined and notification was made accordingly. After notification all fragments in the area were entered as such in the record- of -right and notice thereof was made.
As per section 7 such fragments for which notice has been issued under sub section 2 of section 6 cannot be transferred unless thereby the fragment becomes merged in contiguous survey number or recognized sub division of the survey number.
There is a prohibition against the transfer of land in the notified area so as to create the State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 111/166 fragments.
There is no doubt about the fact that the land which falls under those estate which are the subject matter of notification under section 5,6 can be transferred only in accordance of section 7 of the Act. Apart from this, there is complete prohibition of transfer of the land in the notified area which likely to create fragments. The transfer of land upto the standard area is not prohibited under this provision.
After notifying the area and declaring the standard area U/s 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7 and 8, the concerned estate are taken up for the consolidation U/s 14 of the Act, the accused G.C. Sharma was the consolidation officer at the time of notification and publication u/s 14 of the Act, therefore, it is out of the context to say that he was not aware of the proceedings of section 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 for the estate of Kanjhawla and Poothkhurd. The notifying the area and determination of standard area are the preliminary exercise taken up before bringing the particular estate under the consolidation. Therefore, non production of notification of standard area is not going to effect the case of prosecution. Notification u/s 14 was issued vide notification Ex.PW56/B for village Poothkhurd; vide Ex. PW56/A for village Kanjhawla. Accused G.C. Sharma had himself confirmed the scheme of consolidation vide State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 112/166 Ex.PW61/P147 and Ex.PW61/P148 for village Kanjhawla on 24.4.97; vide Ex. PW65/Y-36 for village Poothkhurd on 18.5.98. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was not aware of the notification of standard area, hence, production of the same by the prosecution in evidence is not required.
Ld. Defence counsel has confused the interpretation of section 7, 8 and section 30 of the Act. The prohibition under section 7 and 8 on transfer of the land is prior to the start of consolidation, consolidation in an estate starts only after notification and publication under section 14 whereby government declare its intention to make scheme for consolidation of holdings. After the start of the consolidation proceedings, section 30 came into picture which deals with the transfer of property during consolidation proceedings. It is needless to mention that prohibition u/s 7, 8 shall continue to be applied. Section 30 is read as under:-
Transfer of property during consolidation proceedings:-
"After a notification under sub- section (1) of Section 14 has issued and during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings no State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 113/166 landowner or tenant having a right of occupancy upon whom the scheme will be binding shall have power without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer to transfer or otherwise deal with any portion of his original holding or other tenancy so as to affect the rights of any other landowner or tenant having a right of occupancy therein under the scheme of consolidation."
As per section 30 after issuance of notification u/s 14 and during the consolidation proceedings, there is a complete prohibition on the transfer of property in the concerned area, but same is permitted with the sanction of consolidation officer. Here in this case, it is to be examined that whether sanction of consolidation officer was taken before the transfer of land by way of several sale deeds which were executed at Mumbai. As per the case of the prosecution, no such sanction was obtained before transfer of land under consolidation by way of sale deed. By way of office order dated 29.8.1990 (Ex.PW40/A) and circular Ex. PW14/A there was a complete ban of transfer, registration and mutation State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 114/166 of property of Delhi outside Delhi. Circular Ex. PW14/A about prohibiting mutation on the basis of documents registered outside Delhi if the claimant is not a resident of presidency town, where the document was registered. The circular was circulated among the concerned officers.
Ex.PW40/A is the office order from the office of Dy. Commissioner, Delhi which bars the transfer of agriculture land U/s 30 Indian Registration Act, in Delhi by obtaining registered sale deed from the metropolitan cities other than Delhi. This circular also bars the mutation on the basis of such transfer.
39). These circulars prohibit the transfer of land of Delhi in the area outside Delhi. Here in this case, there is nothing on record to show that any prior permission of the accused being the consolidation officer was taken by the parties before transferring the land which were subject matter of consolidation proceedings. Even if, such permission was granted by the accused same is also illegal in view of the circular Ex. PW14/A and Ex. PW40/A which prohibits the sale, registration and mutation of such property.
Only allegation the prosecution has proved that the transfer of the land taken place in violation of those circulars, being the consolidation officer accused was well aware of the same, despite State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 115/166 knowing this, he allowed the mutation of such transfer in the revenue record. Accused has failed to show that he has acted in accordance with section 30 of the Act and have not violated the circulars of administrative directions in allowing the mutation of the properties registered at Bombay. Therefore, the averment of Ld. Counsel with respect to the powers of consolidation officer to allow the transfer of the land is without merit.
After confirmation of consolidation scheme u/s 20 of East Punjab Ruling Act, the scheme cannot be interfered except as provided u/s 36 of the Act which provides as under:-
36. Power to vary or revoke scheme -
"A Scheme for the consolidation of holdings confirmed under this Act may, at any time, be varied or revoked by the authority which confirms it subject to any order of the State Government that may be made in relation thereto and a subsequent scheme may be prepared, published and confirmed in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
As per this provision, after confirmation of scheme, same may be varied or revoked by the authority which confirms it subject to the order of the Chief Commissioner. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW-58 Ram Niwas, Deputy Commissioner. He was posted as SDM Saraswati Vihar and SDM State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 116/166 Narela during 1998-99. The consolidation process was going on for village Kanjhawala and Pooth Khurd during this period. He was looking after the charge of SOC ( Settlement officer consolidation). SOC has to confirm the scheme use and the procedure as followed by consolidation officer. Accordingly, he confirmed the scheme of consolidation of village Pooth Khurd. He deposed that once the scheme is announced and confirmed, the consolidation officer has no right to any change. An approval of competent authority is required in case any change is made by the consolidation officer. He further stated that consolidation officer has no right to change the consolidation scheme without prior approval of Financial Commissioner. Therefore, the change in the consolidation scheme at the time of repartition after the scheme has been confirmed is against the law. It is further substantiated by PW-59 Satish Verma, UDC who has produced the order of pending cases before the financial commissioner, same is exhibited as Ex.PW-59/A. This document is order dated 24.12.2002 of financial commissioner Delhi regarding setting aside the extension of date for consolidation scheme of village Pooth khurd from 23.02.98 to 31.01.98 as irregular. It was further directed that repartition proceeding duly conducted de novo.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 117/166
40). Here in this case, it has been alleged against the accused that despite within his knowledge that land under consolidation cannot be transferred legally he allowed the mutation of such transfer in the revenue record and also gave benefit of allotment of the consolidation scheme to such beneficiaries who came into existence only by way of the sale deed registered at Mumbai. Their names were entered in the list of beneficiaries by way of repartition.
Therefore, the act of entering name of new right holder by way of repartition in a confirmed consolidation scheme was against the law.
41. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that section 30 of the Registration Act during the relevant period of time did not bar the registration of property of Delhi and Mumbai. There is no dispute with respect to the statutory provisions. The accused persons were posted under their capacity as consolidation officer, ACO , patwari and the entire proceedings with respect to the consolidation in "The East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948" was to be carried out by State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 118/166 these persons only. There was a circular issued from the office of Deputy commissioner Ex.PW-40/A and circular Ex.PW14/A issued by Addl. District Magistrate which bars the transfer, registration and mutation of land situated in Delhi out of Delhi. This circular also bars the mutation on the basis of such transfer. This circular was issued by the Superior of the accused persons, in any stretch of imagination it cannot be presumed that accused persons were not aware of existence of such circulars. Even if, statutes permits the registration outside Delhi, an official circular barring such registration in existence, despite that, sale deed was got registered in violation of the same by the beneficiaries/ new right holders. Not only that, accused persons fully aware of this had facilitated and acted upon the mutation of the property on the basis of sale deed which were executed in violation of that circular. It was expected from the accused persons that they should have abided the circular and not allowed any of the applicant to seek mutation on the basis of the same. Though, the original of the circular Ex.PW-40/ A has not been proved by the prosecution in evidence despite that same has been proved in view of the fact that none of the accused persons have denied the existence of the same. Nowhere, in the cross examination of witness or in statement of the State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 119/166 accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC this document has been denied. Therefore, it is proved that there were clear cut directions from the superior authority were in existence which bars the registration the property existed in Delhi at Mumbai at the time of consolidation proceedings.
It has been alleged that accused G.C. Sharma-CO Suresh Chand ACO, Vinod Pandey, Patwari provided a 100 ft. wide road unauthorizedly, violating the confirmed scheme of village Kanjhawla in order to benefit the individuals who were allotted plots on the side of the proposed road as a result 45 persons have been benefited. In order to prove, prosecution has placed upon reliance upon a list Ex. PW71/M which bears the name of several persons who were the beneficiaries and got the plot on the side of 100 ft. road in village Kanjhawla. This list was prepared by the IO himself. But it is not proved on the basis of which document this list has been prepared, in order to prove the same, the relevant official revenue record should have been produced to show that there was some changes made by the accused persons by creating a 100 ft road which was not provided in the original consolidation scheme. No such map or data has been produced. In his testimony, PW71 the IO of the case, failed to give any State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 120/166 satisfactory answer about the 100 ft. road therefore prosecution has failed to prove the newly carved out 100 ft. road and the beneficiaries thereof.
42.) It has been alleged against the accused persons that they have even alloted plots to the minor who were not entitled to allotment of plots.
Prosecution has placed the entire mutation record in the evidence. This record containing the list of right holders who were created after the confirmation of consolidation scheme. Separate list prepared by the IO Ex. PW70/D1 and Ex. PW70/DB of both the villages bearing the details of sale deed, purchase, seller and corresponding, detail of plot, allotment of plot has been filed. This list has been prepared on the basis of the list prepared during the repartition i.e. for village Kanjhawla(Ex.P61/P199 to Ex.P61/202 and Ex.PW61/146) and w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.5.99(Ex.PW55/D) for village Pooth Khurd. No such document has been produced to suggest that the beneficiaries created on the basis of sale deed were minor or the dead persons. Prosecution was required to establish these facts by producing the corroborative piece of evidence. Merely showing this fact in the charge-sheet is not sufficient since the evidence in this case is primarily documentary, therefore, facts required to be corroborated accordingly.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 121/166 PW36 has been examined by the prosecution in this regard and he denied that he got 16 residential and 15 industrial plots allotted in his name or in the name of his family members. He further denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that he obtained NOC from accused G.C Sharma and got the land registered in the name of his children. Therefore, the fact of allotting the plot and mutation thereof to minors and dead person has not been established by the prosecution.
43). On the aspect of criminal conspiracy this court is of the view that accused persons also been charged U/s 120B IPC of criminal conspiracy. In order to bring home the charges of conspiracy and for the purpose of drawing inferences U/s 10 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused acted in concert, either through overt or covert acts in furtherance of common objective. Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down there are satisfied, the act done by one is admissible against the conspirators. The prosecution is required to prove by the chain of events which could lead to strong inference of conspiracy. Conspiracy can be inferred either on the basis of direct or circumstantial State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 122/166 evidence. Though direct evidence of conspiracy is difficult in most cases, the circumstances proved should reasonably point to existence of prior concert of mind.
It has been alleged by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Aggarwal V. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 609:-
"It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having thee elements:
(1) agreement (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects".
In E.G. Barsay Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1961 SC 1762 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 123/166 "gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegalact agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is an ingredient of the offence that ll the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law".
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 443:-
That for an offence u/s 120B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do so or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.
The offence against the accused persons has also been alleged U/s 120B IPC and charge State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 124/166 accordingly framed against all the accused persons. Now it is to be seen from the testimony of the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution, whether it has been able to prove that all the accused persons agreed to commit the alleged offence.
44) It is alleged against the accused that however they could not sanction any farm house manipulated/facilitated of the allotment of the plots to the other members of the same family and their relatives collectively at the side of four farm houses and ensure that the identify/existence of the farm house were not disturbed.
Similarly, the accused persons also manipulated/facilitated the allotment of plots to the members of same family and their relatives collectively at the side of three farm houses in a way that identify of the witnesses of ffarm house was not disturbed in village Pooth Khurd.
In order to establish this fact, prosecution has examined PW27 and PW71. List of farm house Ex. PW27/A has been produced to show the name of the original allottees of the farm house in village Kanjhawla and Pooth Khurd. In the testimony of PW71, list of farm house of Kanjhawla Ex. PW71/P1 and list of farm house of village Poothkhurd Ex. PW71/Q1 has been produced. These list are hand State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 125/166 written list and provide the name of the allottee and the area of the farm house but these listare not comprehensive enough to understand what was the situation of farm house prior to the consolidation and after the consolidation. In order to compare the same, specific evidence should have come on record. The same has not been produced. In his cross- examination PW71 IO of the case, submitted that list Ex. PW71/P1 and Ex. PW71/Q1 are not certified copies and he also do not remember who has signed the encircled portion at D1 in Ex. PW71/P1. The detail mentioned in Ex. PW71/P1 were taken from the record maintained by V.K. Pandey. Original of Ex. PW71/P1 was not seized. Volunteered he stated that same is the extract prepared by accused V.K. Pandey and counter by the then Tehsildar. IO could not record the statement of those persons which are encircled in Ex. PW71/P1. In view of the statement of the IO and the documents produced, prosecution failed to establish the allotment of farm house as alleged.
45) The argument of Ld. Defence Counsel of accused G.C. Sharma of not obtaining prior sanction U/s 197 CrPC to prosecute the accused, I am of the view that to invoke the sanction U/s 197 CrPC it is to be seen that the act constitute an offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty, there should be a direct nexus of the alleged State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 126/166 act with the discharge of official duty. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mata Jog Dubey Vs. H.C. Bahri AIR 1956 SC 44 "There must be reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty.................."
"If the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office as to be inseparable from them, then sanction under section 197(1) would be necessary; but if there was no necessary connection between them and the performance of duties the official status furnishing only the occasion and opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required."
It has been further held by Honble Supreme Court in Azambhai Malik vs. State of Gujrat, (2009) 2 SCC 402 as given below:
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 127/166 "18. The direction which had been given by this Court, as far back as in 1971 in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava case holds good even today.
All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197Cr.P.C. On the other hand, there can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be said to be a part of the official duties required to be performed by him. As mentioned in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava case the underlying object of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is to enable the authorities to scrutinize the allegations made against a public servant to shield him/her against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution initiated with the main object of causing embarrassment and harassment to the said official.
However, as indicated hereinabove, if the authority State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 128/166 vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and have to be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform. Hence, in respect of prosecution for such excesses or misuse of authority, no protection can be demanded by the public servant concerned."
In the present case, the evidence alleged against the accused is of taking undue advantage of his office thereby he invited the applications for the purpose of mutation of the land under consolidation in violation of the official directions by his superiors. Not only he allowed the mutation on one hand but on the other side, he in connivance with the co-accused entered the name of those persons who became the owner of the property on the basis of sale deed in the consolidation record. Those persons were allotted land out of the already consolidated land of the confirmed scheme. Such act of accused was in contravention with the provision of "The East Punjab State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 129/166 Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948". Being in position of Tehsildar and Consolidation Officer, he was well aware of the official directions, despite that he abused his position being a public servant and in order to give pecuniary advantage not only for himself but also to other person who were the beneficiaries of the allotment. The act of the accused amounts to misuse of his authority which are not otherwise permitted under law, such act cannot claim protection of section 197 CrPC. The accused was required to discharge his duty under the legal framework but he crossed that limit knowing fully the nature of his act. Therefore, the argument of Ld. Counsel that after retirement of accused G.C. Sharma, he deserve the protection of section 197 CrPC, is not tenable. The act of the accused does not fall under the category of the act which require shield to the public servant u/s 197 CrPC.
46). It has been alleged against the accused persons that accused G.C. Sharma being the Consolidation Officer of village Pooth Khurd; Ishwar Singh being the Consolidation Officer of village Pooth Khurd; Dharmanand as the patwari of village Pooth Khurd; Vinod Kumar Pandey posted as Patwari of State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 130/166 Kanjhawla; Suresh Chandra posted as ACO/Naib Tehsildar of village Kanjhawla; Lalit Kumar Rana being the patwari of village Poothkhurd; and Dayanand being the patwari of village Pooth Khurd had entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence. It is alleged that in furtherance of their criminal common intention, they got 50 sale deeds of village Kanjhawla and 38 sale deed of village Poothkhurd registered at Sub Registrar office Mumbai and on the basis of those sale deeds, land were mutated in favour of the purchaser.
Doing mutation on the basis of sale deed is not the offence unless and until same is done against the law. Here in this case, the land of village Kanjhawla and Pooth Khurd were under consolidation. Notification U/s 14(1) of "The East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948" was issued on 5.9.88 for village Pooth Khurd vide Ex. PW56/B and notification on 10.9.93 it was issued in respect of village Kanjhawla vide Ex.PW56/A. . Thereafter, the rules of consolidation were duly notified on 12.6.96 vide notification ex. PW56/C. Thereafter, the date of submission of demand for residential or industrial plots was fixed on 25.6.96 and demand was to be filed within 30 days. So far as village Kanjhawla this date of demand was 25.6.96 State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 131/166 and 23.2.96 for village Pooth Khurd.
47). Thereafter, the draft consolidation scheme for village Kanjhawla vide Ex. PW61/P147 was announced on 14.11.96 and 30 days time was given to file any objection u/s 19 of the Act, the last date of filing any objection was 13.12.96. Therefore, after the expiry of this period the said scheme was confirmed on 24.4.97 vide order Ex. PW61/P148 under section 20 of the Act.
Similarly, the consolidation scheme for village Pooth Khurd vide Ex. PW65/Y-36 was announced on 23.2.98 and 30 days time was given to file any objection u/s 19 of the Act, after the expiry of this period the scheme was therefore, confirmed on 22.3.98 vide order Ex. PW65/Y-36.
Scheme of both the villages were accordingly confirmed in accordance with section 20 of the Act and after the confirmation of the scheme U/s 20 there was prohibition on the transfer of land which falls in the revenue estate under the consolidation. Scheme for consolidation of villages can be varied only in accordance with section 36 of the Act and it has been established that accused persons were not having power or authority to transfer the land to allow the transfer and mutation on the basis of sale deeds of the land which were under consolidation.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 132/166
48. The consolidation proceedings in brief can be understood as under:-
Chapter III headed "Consolidation of Holdings"
beginning with section 14 and ending with section 36, contains the principal operative provisions. Section 14 enables the State Government either suo motu or on application made to it to declare by notification its intention to make a claim for the consolidation of holdings in such estate or estates or part thereof as may be specified. On such publication, a consolidation officer is appointed who, after consulting the persons interested, that is, the landowners, non proprietors and the Gram Panchayat, prepares a scheme for the consolidation of holdings. Section 15 requires that a Consolidation Officer shall provide in the scheme for the payment of compensation to any owner who is allotted a holding of less market rate. Under section 18, the Consolidation Officer may reserve certain areas for common purposes. The Consolidation Officer after preparing his draft scheme is required to publish it, and section 19 further provides that a person who is likely to be affected by such scheme may communicate his objections to the Consolidation Officer who are considering the objections, submit the scheme with such amendments as he may consider necessary together with his remarks on the State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 133/166 objections, to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The amended scheme is also required to be published.
"Under Section 20 the Settlement Officer after considering the objections, if any, may confirm the scheme with or without modifications or refuse to confirm it. In the latter event, the Settlement Officer shall return the draft scheme with such directions as may be necessary to the Consolidation Officer for reconsideration and resubmission. The scheme as confirmed is required to be published in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned. Under Section 21, the Consolidation Officer is required to carry out repartition in accordance with the scheme as confirmed. Any person aggrieved by the repartition may file written objections before the Consolidation Officer within fifteen days off the publication. The Consolidation Officer after giving a hearing to the objector, may pass appropriate orders confirming or modifying the repartition. Sub section (3) allows a person dissatisfied with the order of the Consolidation Officer to file an appeal before the Settlement Officer who, after giving a hearing to the appellant, may pass such orders as he considers appropriate. Under Sub- section (4) right of appeal is given from the order of the Settlement Officer to the State Government.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 134/166 Under Section 22 the Consolidation Officer shall cause to be prepared a new record of rights for the area under consolidation giving effect to the repartition as finally sanctioned as provided in Section 21. Section (23)(1) determines the right to possession of new holdings where all persons concerned agree to enter into possession of the holding allotted to them by the scheme as finally confirmed. The Consolidation Officer may allow them to enter into such possession forthwith or from such date as he may specify. Sub-section (2) provides for a contingency where there is no agreement as to entry into possession. In such a case, the owners or tenants are entitled to possession of the holdings and tenancies allotted to them from the commencement of the agricultural year next following the date of publication of the scheme under Section 20(4) or, as the case may be, of the preparation of the new record of rights under section 22(I). If necessary, the Consolidation Officer shall put them in physical possession at the holding to which they are so entitled. Sub section (3) and Sub-section (4) deal with the disposal of standing crops and provide for recovery of compensation.
Section 24 provides that after the right holders have entered into possession of the holdings allotted to them, the "scheme shall be deemed to have come State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 135/166 into force and the possession of the allottees affected by the scheme of consolidation, or as the case may be by repartition shall remain undisturbed until a fresh scheme is brought into force or a change is ordered in pursuance of provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 21, or an order passed under section 36 or Section 42 of this Act."
Thus, under this provision, after coming into force of scheme, the possession of the new allottees shall remain undisturbed subject to the contingencies of a fresh scheme or a change ordered as a result of acceptance of objections or appeal, in pursuance of section 21, sub-sections (2)(3) and (4) or an order passed under Section 36 or 42.
Section 25 recognizes the title of the right holders, the new allottees as they had in the original holdings or tenancies. Section 36, which is the last provision under chapter III is reproduced below in extenso--
"A Scheme for the consolidation of holdings confirmed under this Act may, at any time, be varied or revoked by the authority which confirms it subject to any order of the State Government that may be made in relation thereto and a subsequent scheme may be prepared, published and confirmed in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 136/166
49) The existence of conspiracy is to be seen in view of the postings, duties and act done by the accused persons.
(I) Accused G.C. Sharma was posted as Consolidation Officer and he himself has confirmed the scheme for both the villages vide Ex. PW65/Y36 for village Pooth Khurd and vide Ex. PW61/P147 and Ex.PW61/P148 for village Kanjhawla. It can easily be presumed that after the consolidation scheme, he was well aware of the proceedings of "The East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948". Despite having knowledge that after the confirmation of scheme U/s 20 of the Act same cannot be interfered. He also overlooked the directions of the superior authorities issued vide Ex. PW14/A dated 3.10.96 which prohibits the mutation on the basis of document registered outside Delhi if the claimant is not a resident of presidential town where the document was registered and this circular was circulated among all the consolidation officer so it was well within the knowledge of accused.
Similarly, there was another office order dated 29.8.90 Ex. PW40/A issued from the office of Dy. Commissioner, Delhi which bars the transfer of agricultural land u/s 30 of Indian Registration Act in State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 137/166 Delhi by obtaining registered sale deed from the metro cities other than Delhi. This circular also bars the mutation on the basis of such transfer. Not only that accused was also aware of the direction of Chief Minister Delhi which was issued on 2.4.98 vide Ex. PW15/A with respect to the consolidation of village Kanjhawla.
50). There were several persons who got executed the purchase of property vide different sale deeds, got registered the same in Mumbai since the registration and sale of the property which falls under the consolidation was barred in Delhi. On the basis of those sale deeds the demand application was put up before the accused being the Tehsildar, and same was further marked to Halqa Patwari who prepared P1 form after referring to the revenue record. P1 form alongwith application for mutation alongwith relevant documents was further put up before Kanoongo or Naib Office Kanoongo for necessary action. Kanoongo further verified the contents of form P1 from the record. Notice was then issued to the seller and buyer. A notice to the public at large was also issued before entering in the records after giving opportunity of hearing. The Tehsildar accordingly passed an order of mutation. The mutation so ordered is then entered into O-O register maintained State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 138/166 by Naib Office Kanoongo. From this register patwari also copies entries in khatoni register/record of rights. This procedure of mutation was generally followed in the revenue department as per rules. This procedure was explained by PW65 Ombir Singh in his testimony.
Not only this the accused persons have also manipulated the service reports. As per the Law, a public notice was required to be issued before passing the order of mutation. In this case several service report has been annexed with the demand application. But instead of serving the notice on public by pasting the same on the conspicuous place, the due process was not followed. The service report does not bear the name of the process, date of service. Manipulation of service was done to avoid the public objects which also shows connivance amongst the accused persons.
51). Posting of accused persons already established during the relevant period of time in the office of Kanjhawla and Poothkhurd. Therefore, for the sake of brevity reproduction of that part is not required here.
52). After marking the application, the same was went to Patwari Dharmanand of village Pooth State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 139/166 Khurd, V.K. Pandey, Patwari of village Kanjhawla, Lalit Kumar Rana patwari of village Pooth Khurd and Dayanand, Patwari of village Pooth Khurd respectively according to their place of posting and the revenue estate they were looking. Being the patwari, P1 form was filled up and the matter was sent for grant of mutation. P1 form with respect to village Pooth Khurd has been exhibited as P1 Forms Accordingly, mutation was granted by the accused G.C. Sharma vide Ex. PW61/P149 to PW61/P198 for village Kanjhawla and for village Pooth Khurd vide Ex. PW65/Y1 to Ex.PW65/Y10, PW65/Y11 to PW65/Y21, PW65/Y22 to PW65/Y24, PW65/Y25 to PW65/Y27 and PW65/Y28 and Ex. PW65/Y36 and also Ex. PW65/Y29 to PW65/Y35.
Therefore, in this manner those person who got the properties transferred at mumbai in violation of those circulars got the mutation of these properties which were under consolidation and cannot be transferred in accordance with the provisions of the Act with the help of the accused persons.
53). After the confirmation of the consolidation scheme, repartition for village Kanjhawla was caried out during the period w.e.f. 5.5.98 to 29.5.98 vide Ex.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 140/166 PW61/P199 to P202 and Ex.PW61/146.
Similarly, the repartition of village Pooth Kala was carried out w.e.f. 18.3.99 to 5.5.99 vide Ex. PW55/D. As per section 21 of the Act, Consolidation Officer has to carry out the same in accordance with the scheme of consolidation confirmed U/s 20 of the Act.
Accordingly, under repartition the boundaries of the holdings are demarcated, but here in this case the accused persons carried out re-partition in the karwai register and added those persons where sale deed were registered after the confirmation of the scheme U/s 20 of the Act. As many as beneficiaries of 50 sale deedes of village Kanjhawla and 38 for village Pooth Khurd were entered in the confirmed consolidation scheme. These new holders were not beneficiaries under consolidation scheme and came into existence by way of sale deeds which were executed after the confirmation of the scheme. These re-partition were allowed by accused G.C. Sharma for village Kanjhawla, Ishwar Singh for village Pooth Khurd. Signature of both the consolidation officers appears on the repartition register ex. PW61/P199 to Ex. PW61/P202 and Ex.PW61/146 for village Kanjhawla and signature of accused Ishwar Singh on the repartition register Ex. PW55/D. Suresh Chandra being the ACO/Naib Tehsildar of village Pooth Khurd State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 141/166 also participated in the repartition proceedings and his signature is also there on the proceeding Ex. PW55/D.
54). Being the patwari of both the villages accused Lalit Kumar Rana and Dharmanand were also aware of the circular from the department prohibiting the mutation on the basis of sale deed executed and registered in Mumbai since patwaris are the most import link of the revenue department who is having knowledge of the entire revenue record of a particular estate and also the physical position of the property situated in that estate. It can easily be presumed that he is also aware of the provisions of "The East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948". The consolidation Officer functions with the support of trained staff i.e. patwari, Kanoongo and Naib Tehsildar and as per mark PW71 although this is typed copy of the document but same has not been disputed from the side of the accused persons. This document provides the functions performed by the Patwari, Kanoongo, Naib Tehsildar and Consolidation Officer.
"Before publication of the scheme of consolidation following records are prepared by:-
(1) Patwaris State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 142/166 (2) Kanoongos (3) Naib-Tehsildars (1) New Khataunis are prepared on the basis of the
previous revenue khataunis by the patwari. (2) Preparation of the Haqdar-wise register on the basis of the value of the land held by particular land-
owner either at one place or at different places by Patwari.
(3) While giving new kila numbers, each of the Kila is measured with the help of chain having dotted place to the extent of ghata. One ghata is equal to 8-1/4 ft. At the time of measurement, Massavi is prepared indicating therein the dimensions of the Kila ghata- wise. Field Book is also prepared from the Massavi by patwari and Kanoongo and Naib Tehsildar. (4) Qamis (reservation of built up) are also inspected at the site and ttheir list is also prepared. (5) Area is tallied with the old revenue records. (6) Valuation of land is done immediately after preparation of the new Khataunis and pass books were also distributed to the land owners. (7) Similarly Naib-Tehsildar to be known as ACO is always remained with the patwari, Kanoongo in the field and he required to carry out checking and to eradicate any mistake.
(8) CO is required to carry out checking of the work State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 143/166 done by the Naib-Tehsildar/ACO, Kanongo and Patwari to the extent of 20%".
55). Hence the officials were well aware of the entire proceedings of consolidation and mutation. Therefore, there is no iota of doubt that they were not aware of the entire proceedings. Similarly, they were also aware that the application has been marked to them by the Tehsildar is for the preparing their report on the basis of revenue record, patwari prepared the report in the form of P1 form and on the basis of that report, the mutation was granted. Patwari was well aware that land under consolidation cannot be sold out and their mutation is also prohibited by the orders of senior officers. Despite that they have not mentioned the same in their report since there was already an agreement between the accused persons that such mutations are to be carried out on the basis of those sale deeds and benefits is to be given to the new right holders by including them in confirmed scheme. On the basis of their report, the mutation was granted in furtherance of criminal conspiracy to provide benefit to the new right holders.
The second part of conspiracy was completed when accused G.C. Sharma, Ishwar Singh and Suresh Chandra allowed the entry of the name of these new right holders in the confirmed consolidation scheme State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 144/166 and the allotment of plots, accordingly was made to those persons which otherwise legally not entitled for the allotment. The record pertains to allotment and repartition has been proved by the prosecution vide Ex. PW61/P199 to Ex. PW61/P202 Ex.PW61/146 qua village Kanjhawla and qua village Pooth Khurd vide Ex. PW55/D. All the sale deeds came into existence after the confirmation of the scheme and mutation of all the applications were carried out accordingly.
56) On the basis of these mutation accused G.C. Sharma being the Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer for village Kanjhawla and Pooth Khurd, Ishwar Singh for village Poothkhurd and Suresh Chandra ACO for village Poothkhurd signed the entries in the karwari register of repartition proceedings. The entries in the karwari register shows that it were made in the back date since as per section 20 of the Act once scheme is confirmed no new right holders can be created. But in this case same has been created by the accused persons in connivance with each other.
57). The existence of conspiracy is further established by the prosecution witnesses PW4 Suraj Singh. In his testimony, he stated that he went to accused G.C. Sharma for getting his sale deed State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 145/166 registered at Bombay. On inquiry from him as to the sum of money required to be spent, he sent him to accused Vinod Kumar Pandey, who told him that since he had met accused G.C. Sharma, his work would be done. He also talked about one and a half lakh and asked him to give payment to any of the persons namely Ranvir Singh, Satish Bhardwaj, Jagjit Singh, Bhagwan Singh or Devender Singh.
Another witness PW5 Rajesh Dabas stated that during the court proceedings acused G.C. Sharma told him that if he did not pay Rs.30,000/- to him he would include entire 12 bighas and 8 biswas of land to gram sabha out of his own share. PW5 did not make the payment as a result of which accused G.C. Sharma included 12 bighas and 8 biswa of land in gram sabha out of his own share.
PW6 Sh. Sukhbir Singh also deposed that he told to the police that mutation work was done by accused G.C. Sharma after accepting the money. He further admits that he told the police that G.C. Sharma did this work in connivance of then Kanoongo, Patwari and ACO.
PW7 Sh. Ved Prakash stated that patwari Pandey demanded money from his brother.
Similarly, PW10 also states about the demand of money by Vinod Pandey regarding his land in growth Centre.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 146/166 PW16 Sardar Singh deposed that one Satish Kumar approached him and demanded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- for sale deed and mutation. He further deposed that accused G.C. Sharma and Vinod Kumar told him that for obtaining the benefit of desired plot, one has to spend money.
PW18 Sh. M.P. Sharma who was posted as SDM, HQ described the role of officials in consolidation proceedings.
PW37 being the member of Advisory Committee also stated about the connivance of accused persons in allotment of plot and he has further stated that all the member of Advisory Committee tendered their resignation as they were not taken into confidence by Consolidation Officer with respect to the consolidation proceedings. He further stated that Dalip Kumar Rana, Patwari Ishwar singh Consolidation officer, Suresh Chand ACO took over and acted arbitrarily to confirm the scheme of allotment after the transfer of G,C. Sharma and Dayanad Saroha. Reliance is further placed upon in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641:2003 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
"Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials".
To establish a charge of State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 147/166 conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particularr unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 148/166 unlawful use."
In view of the above discussion it is proved that there was an agreement to commit offence amongst the accused persons with a criminal object of violating the consolidation scheme whereby the new right holders were created and they were allotted the plots in the consolidation proceedings by granting mutation of their property in the revenue record despite the fact that same was prohibited by the superior authorities and the allotment of plots were granted in violation of the provisions of "The East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948".
In the totality of the circumstances and the statement of witnesses examined by the prosecution shows that all the accused persons had connived and having a common illegal object by way of illegal means in their mind.
59). It has been argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the commission of offence U/s 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, proof of demand beyond reasonable doubt is main and essential ingredient. The analysis of the evidence in respect of demand made by accused persons in consolidation proceedings in Kanjhawla and State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 149/166 Poothkhurd does not establish demand, therefore, the ingredients of section 13(1)(d) are not proved.
60). Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 reads as under:-
Criminal misconduct by a public servant-
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct-
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 ; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other peerson, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 150/166 entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person to do so; or
(d) if he-
(I) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
Section 13(1)(d) (iii) deals with criminal misconduct by the public servant while holding office which resultant in someone else (any person) benefiting for getting a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Offence of criminal misconduct where abuse of office or use of corrupt or illegal means by public officer is essential to prove the crime. What prosecution was required to prove that the public officer obtains for someone else not necessarily by abusing his office, or using corrupt or illegal means and pecuniary advantage or valuable thing-without any public interest.
61). To answer this reliance is placed on the judgment of Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI (Supra) wherein State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 151/166 it has been held that :-
"The conclusion which this Court draws is that mens rea is inessential to convict an accused for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) (iii). It would be sufficient if the prosecution proves that the public servant "obtains" by his act, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, to another, without public interest. The inclusion of public interest, in the opinion of the Court, tips the scale in favour of a construction which does not require proof of mens rea. There can be many acts of a public servant, which result in pecuniary advantage, or obtaining of a valuable thing to someone else;
typically these may relate to payment of royalty, grant of license or concessions, issuance of permits, authorizations, etc. Yet, such grants, concessions, or other State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 152/166 forms of advantages to third parties would not criminalize the public servant‟s actions, so long as they have an element of public interest.
They (acts of the public servant) are outlawed, and become punishable, if they are "without public interest".
It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in LIC of India Vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 :-
"Public authorities or those whose acts bear insignia of public element, action to public duty or obligation are enjoined to act in a manner i.e. fair, just and equitable, after taking objectively all the relevant options into consideration and in a manner that is reasonable, relevant and germane to effectuate the purpose for public good and in general public interest and it must not take any irrelevant or irrational factors into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision".
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 153/166
62). Therefore, it can easily be summed up that a decision is said to be without public interest if the requirement of the provisions of section13(1)(iii) are fulfilled. If the action of the public servant is the consequence of his manifest failure to observe those reasonable safeguards against detrimental to the public interest, which having regard to all circumstances it was his or her duty to have adopted.
63). In this case, it is already established that the accused persons have entered into criminal conspiracy for the purpose of achieving an illegal object. Accused G.C. Sharma was the person who was posted as Consolidation Officer and he himself by his order confirmed the scheme of consolidation for both the villages and after the confirmation of section U/s 20 of "The East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948", no change whatsoever could have been carried out in the same, but accused persons connived with each other and agreed to give benefit to some new right holders in the consolidation scheme by allotting plots either at the favourable place or in violation of the confirmed consolidation scheme. For this purpose, the new right holders got their property registered at Bombay and State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 154/166 on the basis of those registered sale deed the matter was put up before Tehsildar i.e. G.C. Sharma and Ishwar Singh marked the same to respective patwaris of village Kanjhawla and Poothkhurd. Patwaris made the report from the revenue record and on the basis of that report notice was issued to seller as well as to the public at large so that they may also know that the particular property is going to be mutated and by issuing such notice an opportunity was afforded to the public at large to file objections if any against the same. The service report were manipulated. It was never brought into the notice of public at large as the service report remained undated and also does not bear the name of the process server. Thereafter, the mutation was allowed by the Tehsildar and entries were made of the new right holders alongwith the person who were beneficiary of the consolidation scheme so as to show that the new entrants are also the part of the confirmed consolidation scheme. These entries were made in the re-partition register U/s 21 of the Act. Accused Ishwar Singh and Suresh Chandra signed the register of village Pooth Khurd, whereas accused G.C. Sharma had signed the repartition register for village Kanjhawla. In this manner, the allotment was made to the new right holder. The role and the documents which were dealt with and signed by the accused persons has already State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 155/166 been discussed above. The entries in the P1 form were made by patwari concerned whereas, the repartition register were signed by the ACO and Consolidation Officer.
64). In carrying out the entire procedure of consolidation and mutation, accused persons have not followed the direction by way of circular Ex.PW14/A which prohibits mutation on the basis of document registered outside Delhi if the claimant is not a resident of presidency town where the document was registered.
The other circular Ex.PW40/A was issued by the then Dy. Commissioner which bars the transfer of agricultural land U/s 30 of the Indian Registration Act in Delhi for obtaining registered sale deed from the metropolitan cities other than Delhi. This circular also bars the mutation on the basis of such transfers. The accused persons violated these circulars and entertained the application of the sale deed which were registered outside Delhi and also allowed mutation of those property in the revenue record. Moreover some guidelines regarding consolidation was also given by the chief Minister vide Ex.P15/A was also ignored.
Not only that they also violated the provisions of "The East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 156/166 Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948" which bears any change or variation in the consolidation scheme after its confirmation u/s 20 of the Act. The accused persons in contravention of this provision added those persons who became owner by virtue of these sale deeds and mutation as the beneficiaries of the consolidation scheme allotting plots to them which they are not supposed to allow after the confirmation of the scheme.
65.) This act of the accused falls under the category of 13(1)(d)(iii) P.C. Act wherein they acted without public interest. Rather by entering the new unauthorized persons in the allotment list, they have eaten the share of those persons who were allottee of the consolidation scheme. The interest of those original allottee were adversely effected when some new unauthorized persons entered in the scheme. There is a possibility that many of the allottees who could have got the allotment of plots at a good location but not able to get the same in view of this act of the accused persons. But it can easily be presumed that entry of these new right holders substantially effected the interest of actual allottees.
66). The accused persons has done this act in violation of section 13 of the Act, although no clear State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 157/166 cut evidence has come up regarding the demand and acceptance of money for such mutation and allotment but there are some witnesses who have given sufficient traces of the existence of corrupt and illegal practices during the mutation and allotment of plots.
PW4 Suraj Singh. In his testimony, he stated that he went to accused G.C. Sharma for getting his sale deed registered at Bombay. On inquiry from him as to the sum of money required to be spent, he sent him to accused Vinod Kumar Pandey, who told him that since he had met accused G.C. Sharma, his work would be done. He also talked about one and a half lakh and asked him to give payment to any of the persons namely Ranvir Singh, Satish Bhardwaj, Jagjit Singh, Bhagwan Singh or Devender Singh.
Another witness PW5 Rajesh Dabas stated that during the court proceedings acused G.C. Sharma told him that if he did not pay Rs.30,000/- to him he would include entire 12 bighas and 8 biswas of land to gram sabha out of his own share. PW5 did not make the payment as a result of which accused G.C. Sharma included 12 bighas and 8 biswa of land in gram sabha out of his own share.
PW6 Sh. Sukhbir Singh also deposed that he told to the police that mutation work was done by accused G.C. Sharma after accepting the money. He State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 158/166 further admits that he told the police that G.C. Sharma did this work in connivance of then Kanoongo, Patwari and ACO.
PW7 Sh. Ved Prakash stated that patwari Pandey demanded money from his brother.
Similarly, PW10 also states about the demand of money by Vinod Pandey regarding his land in growth Centre.
PW16 Sardar Singh deposed that one Satish Kumar approached him and demanded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- for sale deed and mutation. He further deposed that accused G.C. Sharma and Vinod Kumar told him that for obtaining the benefit of desired plot, one has to spend money.
PW18 Sh. M.P. Sharma who was posted as SDM, HQ described the role of officials in consolidation proceedings.
PW37 being the member of Advisory Committee also stated about the connivance of accused persons in allotment of plot and he has further stated that all the member of Advisory Committee tendered their resignation as they were not taken into confidence by Consolidation Officer with respect to the consolidation proceedings. He further stated that Dalip Kumar Rana, Patwari Ishwar singh Consolidation officer, Suresh Chand ACO took over and acted arbitrarily to confirm the scheme of allotment after State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 159/166 the transfer of G,C. Sharma and Dayanad Saroha.
PW38 who was the member of Advisory Committee had resigned due to malpractices of the accused persons. He stated that work was not done as per the confirmed scheme.
67). Therefore, the evidence produced by the prosecution shows that the entire proceedings done by the accused persons were not only for granting pecuniary advantage to the new right holders but also it was aimed at obtaining pecuniary advantage for themselves also.
68). In the totality of the circumstances, the existence of this pecuniary advantage cannot be ruled out. The act of the accused amounts to criminal misconduct u/s 13 (1)(d) of P.C Act 1988 In this manner, accused persons have also abused their position as a public servant. Therefore, the witnesses examined and the record i.e. demand applications, mutation order and repartition register have sufficiently proved that the violation of rules was done in abuse of their position as a public servant and while holding the office as a public servant, the pecuniary advantage in the form of allotment of plot and grant of mutation of consolidation land were given to the new right holder. The accused persons State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 160/166 have also obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves there from. This advantage was without any public interest. The offence has been committed by the accused persons. Hence, commission of offence by accused persons under section 13(1) (d) PC Act is proved, it is also proved that offence was committed in furtherance of criminal conspiracy by accused Consolidation officer/Tehsildar G.C.Sharma; Consolidation officer/Tehsildar Ishwar Singh; Adl. Consolidation officer Suresh Chandra; Patwari Daya Nand Saroha; Patwari Dharmanad ; and Patwari Vinod Kumar Pandey.
Accused Lalit Kumar Rana was also posted as Halqa patwari in the revenue estate of Poothkhurd. In his statement U/s 313 CrPC, he has stated that he was posted as patwari of village Pooth Khurd from September 1988 to July 1999. His signatures could not be found on of the any document pertain to mutation or consolidation. Even none of the witnesses substantially described the role of accused Lalit Rana. The evidence in the present case primarily documentary which has been corroborated by the oral testimony of the witnesses but against Lalit Kumar Rana, one or two witnesses have stated but his role specifically could not be proved in the documents. Therefore, it is not established that he was part of the entire conspiracy.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 161/166
69) Therefore, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused Suresh Chandra that he was forced to sign the re-partition proceedings and no where he was involved in the consolidation proceedings is not tenable due to the fact that the ACO work under the supervision of the CO. The consolidation work is not an easy job which can be carried out only by the CO. The same is done by him only with the association of his subordinates. In a particular office there is hierarchy of officers/officials which functions together to complete the official work. The statement of witnesses and document produced by the prosecution have already established the role of the officials involved in the consolidation proceedings. Even the re-partition proceedings pertains to village Pooth Khurd ex.PW55/D shows the role of ACO in the re-partition. Moreover in his additional statement U/s 313 CrPC accused Suresh Chandra has stated that he was supposed to assist as ACO to G.C. Sharma and S.K. Sharma CO in respect of consolidation of Pooth Khurd but on the other hand he has denied that he was not posted with Ishwar Singh during the consolidation of Pooth Khurd when G.C. Sharma as per A3 own version was transferred and Ishwar Singh has joined vide mark PW71, then he automatically come under the superior who has come in place of State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 162/166 G.C. Shrma. Therefore. There was no requirement of any fresh order that he will continue as the ACO of Pooth Khurd since he is not subordinate to a person but to a post.
70). Having regard to the above discussion, it is held that prosecution beyond reasonable doubt has successfully proved through oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence that accused G.C.Sharma, Ishwar Singh, Suresh Chandra, Daya Nand Saroha, Dharmanad and Vinod Kumar Pandey are guilty of commission of offence of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct by the public servant.
It has been proved that accused G.C. Sharma, accused Ishwar Singh while working as Consolidation Offficer and accused Suresh Chandra while working as Assistant Consolidation Officer and accused Lalit Rana Dayanand and Dharmanand while working as Patwari at village Pooth Khurd hatched a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and others to cause pecuniary gains to themselves and others by doing illegal acts by abusing their official power by corrupt or illegal means while doing the work of consolidation pertains to consolidation scheme of village Kanjhawla. Thereby they committed offence U/s 120B r/w section 13(1)(d) P.C. Act.
Similarly, it is also proved that accused G.C. State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 163/166 Sharma while working as Consolidation Officer; accused Suresh Chander Sharma while working as Assistant Consolidation Officer and accused Vinod Kumar Pandey while working as Patwari at village Kanjhawla has hatched criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and others to cause pecuniary gains to themselves and others by doing illegal acts by abusing their official power by corrupt or illegal means while doing the work of consolidation pertains to consolidation scheme of village Pooth Khurd. Thereby they committed offence U/s 120B r/w section 13(1)(d) P.C. Act.
It is proved that accused G.C. Sharma, Ishwar Singh, Suresh Chandra, Dharmanand and Dayanand posted for village Pooth Khurd and accused G.C. Sharma, Suresh Chandra and Vinod Kumar Pandey posted for village Kanjhawla in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy i.e. by abusing their official position as public servant by corrupt or illegal means they obtained for themselves and for beneficiaries pecuniary advantage without any public interest by performing illegal acts i.e. manipulating sale deeds after facilitating beneficiaries allowing mutation on the basis of registration of sale deeds after due date by beneficiaries at Mumbai to escape obtaining of NOC from Tehsildar for registration in Delhi, violating administrative order dated 29.8.1990 State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 164/166 and circular of ADM (revenue) dated 3.10.96; accepting application for demand for residential and industrial plots and increasing the numbers of right holders and subsequently allotting residential and industrial plot to such right holders without getting change the confirmed scheme from the competent authority and violating decision of Chief Minister, Delhi taken in the meeting dated 2.4.1998; they also in conspiracy with land owners violated a confirmed scheme of consolidation Pooth Khurd and Kanjhawla for illegal gratification/consideration and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13 (1)(d) POC Act and r/w section 120B IPC.
Accordingly, they are held guilty and convicted for the commission of offence punishable U/s 120B IPC read with section 13(1)(d), of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and also U/s section 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with section 120B IPC.
71). Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Lalit Kumar Rana beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he is acquitted from the charges U/s 120B IPC read with section 13(1)(d), of Prevention of Corruption Act 1998 and also U/s section 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1998 read with section 120B IPC.
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 165/166
72). Let Bail bond under section 437A be furnished by accused Lalit Rana.
73). Let convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY KHANAGWAL
KHANAGWAL Date: 2018.11.19
15:41:26 +0530
(SANJAY KHANAGWAL)
Spl.Judge (PC ACT)-05(ACB)
Central /THC/Delhi
Announced in open court
on 17th November 2018
State Vs. G.C.Sharma & others 166/166