Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25739/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined Mtrs. On 02.11.2002, the Applicants executed two sale deeds:

Sale Deed No. 3536 in favor of Oza Mukesh Shantilal and Sale Deed No. 3537 in favor of Otiya Vimalbhai Chandubhai, each for 183.94.65 Sq. Mtrs. (220 Sq. Yards). Later, on 27.02.2003, another Sale Deed (No. 577) was executed in favor of Otiya Dhirenkumar Chandubhai for 125.41.81 Sq. Mtrs. (150 Sq. Yards). Although the Sale Deed dated 14.05.1997 specified 489.87 Sq. Mtrs., the Applicants allegedly sold a total of 493.31.11 Sq. Mtrs., exceeding the original measurement by 3.44 Sq. Mtrs. On 29.03.2010, the Applicants executed Sale Deed No. 1804 in favor of Shri Akhil Anjana Kelavni Mandal for 774.80.49 Sq. Mtrs. on an "AS IS WHERE IS" basis, with mutation Entry No. 3366 certified on 17.04.2010. Allegedly, knowing they did not own this land, the Applicants fraudulently sold the common plot of the society, causing illegal financial gain. It is further alleged that the common plot of Harkornagar Vibhag - 2 (City Survey No. 226/A/35, 628.12 Sq. Mtrs.) and Harkornagar Vibhag - 1 (City Survey No. 240/A/9, 172.75 Sq.

4.1 Further, the complainant alleges that the present applicant purchased land from Revenue Survey No. 73, City Survey No. 240/A/6, on 14/05/1997, admeasuring 489.87 sq. meters. On different occasions in 2002-03, through three separate sale deeds, the applicant sold the aforesaid plot. Thereafter, on 29/03/2010, he entered into another transaction and sold 774.80 sq. meters of land to Shri Akhil Anjana Kelavni Mandal. After this transaction, the complainant purchased the plot three years later and lodged the complaint. Therefore, the applicant has had no interest whatsoever in any plot of Harkornagar Society after 2016, as he had already sold the property. It is further alleged by the complainant that the present applicant sold the common plot of Harkornagar Society. However, as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is presumed that respondent No.2 purchased the plot with full knowledge of its status and thereafter sold it merely to file the present litigation. The complainant cannot be heard to claim that he failed to find relevant records in the register, as he must bear the NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25739/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined consequences of his own lack of diligence. Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but a sponsored litigation, as the complainant is not a bona fide purchaser and did not purchase the property for personal use. Hence, no offence of forgery is made out in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, which clarifies that the accused must have attempted to deceive the complainant. In this case, the property purchased by the applicant was through a registered sale deed, and the property card entry was made by the competent authority. Therefore, the question of tampering does not arise.

6.1 As the applicant is a practicing advocate specializing in revenue matters, he has taken undue advantage of his knowledge. Additionally, excess land measuring 774.80 square meters was sold to Akhil Anjana Kalavani Mandal on 29th March NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25739/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 2010. The sale deed clearly states that the property was sold on an "as-is, where-is" basis. Moreover, although an NA (Non- Agricultural) order was passed by the District Collector, the applicants allegedly revised and subdivided the plot mutually and internally, indicating their fraudulent intent. It is evident that the applicants, without any legal authority, sold the common plot of Harkornagar Cooperative Society and unlawfully became owners of 1,489.87 square meters of land. By using various pretexts, the applicant has prolonged litigation and exploited his legal expertise for personal gain. Therefore, custodial interrogation is required.

6.3 It is submitted that a civil suit has already been filed to determine the rights of the parties and the validity of the sale deed itself. However, this does not diminish or obscure the offense committed by the applicant. Although the applicants originally purchased a plot measuring 489.87 square meters, they fraudulently increased its size to 1,489.87 square meters. The said document, being a government record, has been forged, necessitating custodial interrogation. This is not merely a civil or NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25739/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined boundary dispute between two private individuals. The allegations involve the forgery of government records and other serious offenses. Furthermore, due to the alleged sale transaction with Akhil Anjana Kalavani Mandal, the common plot of Harkornagar Society, measuring approximately 628.12 square meters, was also sold by the present applicant. In this regard, a complaint has been filed, and other victims have supported the allegations by submitting affidavits. Therefore, the dispute concerning the property and its sale does not lessen the burden or gravity of the offense. The applicant, despite having no rightful interest in the property, has engaged in fraudulent transactions and manipulated legal proceedings.