Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
1 CRR-847-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 847 of 2023
MANOJ TIWARI
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKT
Appearance:
Shri Sudeel Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2164 of 2023
RAMESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SPECIAL
POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, UJJAIN
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
(Reserved on 07.04.2025)
(Pronounced on 29.04.2025)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 2 CRR-847-2023 Both the criminal revisions have been preferred under section 397 r/w section 401 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 challenging the order dated 190.01.2023 in special case no.01/2022 by Special Judge appointed under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Ujjain whereby charges under section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 420 of the IPC r/w section 120-B of the IPC and section 420 of the IPC have been framed against the revision petitioner Manoj Tiwari and charges under section 420 r/w section 120-B of the IPC and section 420 of the IPC have been framed against the revision petitioner Ramesh.
2. Facts in brief are that a crime no.85/2013 was registered at police station, Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, Division Ujjain against Shri Ramesh S.Thethe, the then Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, Shri Aditya Sharma, the then Tahsildar, Ujjain, Shri Manoj Tiwai, Patwari Halka No.38, Ujjain, Shri Ramesh and other persons on the allegation that a conspiracy was hatched with the land owner (Ramesh) to return the surplus land that had vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the possession was taken on 29.03.1985 and possession was determined and for that purpose an appeal was preferred on 27.11.2012 and the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Shri Ramesh S. Thethe heard the appeal without jurisdiction and misusing the official Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 3 CRR-847-2023 capacity a Panchnama was prepared by the present appellant dishonestly and a report was prepared by Shri Aditya Sharma, the Tehsildar and physical verification report regarding the land of 0.028 hectare of survey no.1784/3, land of 0.431 hectare of survey no.1785, land of 0.091 hectare of survey no.1787, land of 0.040 hectare of survey no.1788, land of 0.109 hectare of survey no.1789, a total area of 0.699 hectare was ordered to return to revision petitioner Ramesh.
3. After investigation, it was found that the land of value of Rs.71,92,000/- was mutated in the name of Ramesh and for that purpose the then Tahsildar, Ujjain Aditya Kumar Sharma did not perform his duty to remove the illegal encroachment and submitted dishonestly a physical verification report in unusual haste without any objection.
4. Prosecution sanction was received against the revision petitioner Manoj Tiwari and no sanction was required regarding revision petitioner Ramesh s/o Radhakishan and a report under section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 465, 471, 409, 420, 109 and 120-B of the IPC was submitted against the revision petitioners keeping the investigation pending under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C against Ramesh S.Thethe and Aditya Kumar Sharma with a request that as and when the sanction is received the matter shall be submitted to the concerned Special Court.
5. Special Case No.01/2022 was registered in the Court of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 4 CRR-847-2023 Special Judge designated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ujjain, M.P and vide order dated 19.01.2023 the charges were framed as mentioned in para-1 of the order regarding the alleged act of criminal misconduct and cheating is committed during the period of 27.11.2012 to 06.12.2013. No charges were framed under section 467, 471, 409 and 109 of the IPC.
6. Challenging the legality of the framing of charges, the revision petition No.847/2023 is preferred on the ground that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that the present petitioner is working as Patwari in revenue department and the present matter relates to land ceiling department. The said department and its officers have to look after the encroachment and its removal. Till date, no action has been taken. The said department is separate department, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any act as alleged by the respondent and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
7. It is also submitted that the Additional Commissioner has issued the letter dated 29.11.2012 and the Tehsildar has sent the letter to revenue inspector by making endorsement dated 01.12.2012 that the report be called from Patwari by today positively. The RI has forwarded the same letter on 02.12.2012 making remark to the petitioner that report be sent to Tehsildar by 03.12.2012 and being a subordinate as per the direction petitioner has done physical inspection. In the letter itself it Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 5 CRR-847-2023 was mentioned that the land is recorded in the name of State government. Being a Patwari, the petitioner has prepared the actual report on 05.12.2012 and sent to Tehsildar on 07.12.2012. In the report it has clearly stated that Ramesh and others are in possession of the land. Along with the report the petitioner has attached the Khasra Panchsala wherein it was clearly mentioned that the land is recorded in the name of government. In this way, the petitioner has performed his duty in accordance with law. In view of this the impugned order deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.
8. It is further raised that Tahsildar Aditya Sharma has not raised any objection regarding Panchnama. Accordingly, petitioner cannot be held responsible for the illegal act done by other accused. In similar type of cases the respondent has not found any offence committed by Patwari. This case cannot be treated on a different standard. The trial Court has wrongly mentioned that present petitioner has not taken any action for removal of encroachment. The removal of encroachment is not the duty of the Patwari as per the Patwari Manual. There is no single document to show that the petitioner has cheated any person or authority. There is no document to show that the petitioner has caused any illegal loss to any person or illegal benefit to himself. There is not a single document to show that petitioner has done any type of corruption in the entire case. The trial court failed to consider the Kabja Panchnama prepared in the year 1985. At that time also, the possession Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 6 CRR-847-2023 has been taken by the officials of Ceiling department. This clearly shows that the revenue department has nothing to do with the said land. Without instruction of Ceiling department, no other department can do the work or proceedings in the ceiling land. The sanction taken against the petitioner is not in accordance with law. The revision petitioner Ramesh is not associated with the present petitioner. At the time of performing the duty the petitioner has received letter from his immediate officer RI and Tahsildar.
9. Criminal Revision No.2164/2023 is preferred on the ground that on 29.03.1985 the proceedings of possession of the land held by the joint family was a paper proceeding and was conducted ex-parte. The petitioner Ramesh was in actual possession of the land. When the petitioner came to know that his name has been deleted from the land of his possession then he preferred the appeal with application for condonation of delay to protect his title and possession and Additional Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal as he was in actual continuous possession of the land. The government has not granted sanction against the then Additional Commissioner and the Tahsildar so he cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under the provisions of the IPC as no one remains with him he has conspired. The competent authority has assessed the compensation only Rs.2,33,600/-. Accordingly, the valuation of Rs.71,92,000/- is incorrect. Section 12 of the Urban Ceiling Land Repeal Act, 1999 Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 7 CRR-847-2023 confer a right of appeal. Accordingly, no illegality can be imputed on filing the appeal to enforce his rights.
10. The contents of the petitions, the documents annexed thereto and the arguments of learned counsel for the rival parties are heard and perused.
11. Bare reading of the charge sheet reveals that vide order dated 11.06.1996 of M.P Govt., the appellate authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was substituted as Divisional Commissioner instead of Additional Commissioner and Ramesh S.Thethe was posted as Additional Commissioner, Ujjain and Ramesh s/o Radhakishan (revision petitioner) filed an appeal on 26.11.2012 before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain challenging the order dated 29.03.1985 in case No.54x6/78-79 of the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and order dated 28.06.2000 in case no.22x11/84-85 by competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling, Ujjain along with condonation of delay and a report was called from Tahsildar and Tahsildar called the report from the petitioner and present petitioner submitted a physical possession report to the Tahsildar to the effect that on a land of 2.925 hectares comprising 7 survey numbers a partition was effected between the brothers earlier and revision petitioner Ramesh is in possession of 0.699 hectares through fencing and Tahsildar, Ujjain submitted a report on 07.12.2012 Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 8 CRR-847-2023 to Additional Commissioner, Ujjain and Additional Commissioner, Ujjain condoned the delay and also recorded the finding that he has jurisdiction to hear this appeal vide order dated 07.12.2012 and admitted the appeal for final hearing and vide order dated 11.12.2012 the appeal was allowed and ordered to restore the possession of 0.699 hectares to revision petitioner Ramesh s/o Radhakishan recording the finding that at the relevant time the possession was taken by revenue inspector whereas the Tahsildar was authorized to take the possession. The revenue inspector is not authorized to take the possession of the land vested in the government and the notice of possession was issued on 25.09.1984 whereas the proceedings for taking possession was conducted on 29.03.1985. Accordingly, the revision petitioner Ramesh was not aware of the fact that on which date the possession has been taken and further recorded the finding that the notice was not served on the revision petitioner and the proceedings of taking possession on 29.03.1985 is conducted ex-parte without notice and possession of the revision petitioner is affirmed by the report of Patwari/revision petitioner Manoj Tiwari.
12. The prosecution against revision petitioner Manoj Tiwari is based on the allegation that petitioner prepared the Panchnama dated 05.12.2012 knowing that the said land have been vested in the Madhya Pradesh State and the Panchnama was prepared committing forgery and abusing the official capacity.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 9 CRR-847-2023
13. The proof of criminal misconduct by a public servant is a fact in issue in the criminal proceedings and the fact in issue can be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence.
14. The suspicion of petitioners' involvement arose due to the possession report (false). Whether the suspicion is strong and support the impugned charges framed or not is a question of degree of complicity which cannot be decided at this early stage since this exercise is to be left alone for the trial court to be conducted after recording and marshaling of evidence.
15. The scope of contentions advanced before this court are limited and, therefore, at this stage, it is not apposite to examine whether the prosecution has established the necessary ingredients of section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 420, 120-B of the IPC.
16. When we examine the facts of this case in the light of U.S. (Upjeet Singh ) Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - ILR 2024 MP 570 (DB), this Court does not feel that any illegality or impropriety was committed by the trial court while framing charges against the petitioners of both the revision petitions in regard to said offences. Consequently, present revision petitions deserve no interference and are dismissed as such.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 10 CRR-847-2023 (VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM