State Of Chhattisgarh vs Baranlal Gabel 57 Crmp/840/2019 ... on 5 April, 2019
As per the chargesheets, during investigation Accused
no. 1 Adarsh Kumar disclosed that he became the
lawful owner of the subject land by purchasing the same
from its owner Late Sh. Rati Ram vide documents executed by
him on 11.09.1993 and Accused no. 1 Adarsh Kumar
produced a receipt dated 11.09.1993 for Rs. 50,000/- signed
by Rati Ram as the sale document and a Special Power of
Attorney executed by Rati Ram in favour of Accused no. 1
Adarsh Kumar. It is stated in the chargesheet that the SPA was
not for a specific purpose and he was not empowered for sale of
the property in question. It is further stated in the
chargesheet that accused no. 1 Adarsh Kumar had
mentioned that he sold the property to Accused no. 2 vide
agreement to sell, registered GPA, affidavit and Receipt,
all dated 03.08.1995 for a total consideration of Rs. 7.25
lakhs and Accused no. 2 Attar Singh had further sold the land to
Crl Rev. No. 314/2020 State vs. Adarsh Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 12
ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ
AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2023.04.06 11:59:01
+0530
Accused no. 3 Satish Mehra. As per chargesheet the complainant
was examined during investigation and in his statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C, he also stated that the land
around the said land in question was acquired by DDA
but the land belonging to his father was left out from
the acquisition. The complainant was also stated, as per the
chargesheet that his father had entered into an agreement to sell
dated 11.09.1993 with accused no. 1 Adarsh Kumar and the deal
was done for a total consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs out of which
Rs. 50,000/- were received as the advance token money. As per
the chargesheet, the aforesaid token money was to be executed
on 11.02.1994 and that after the balance payment of Rs. 29.50
lakhs was to be made by accused no. 2 Adarsh Kumar but
Accused no. 1 Adarsh Kumar did not pay the balance
payment and the deal was not completed and the agreement to
sell accordingly got lapsed. As per the chargesheet, it is
stated further that the complainant expired on 19.09.1995
and the legal heirs of his father Late Sh. Rati Ram
relinquished their right in the said land in his favour vide
Relinquishment Deed dated 23.04.1998. It is further stated in the
chargesheet, that on checking the record in the Tehsildar office,
the Complainant found that the land was sold by Accused No. 1
Adarsh Kumar representing to be the alleged owner of the land in
question by having purchased from the father of Complainant
vide GPA dated 22.01.1994 and it is further alleged that the GPA
dated 22.01.1994 was never executed by the father of the
Complainant and was a forged document. Further as per the
chargesheet, the Complainant conceded that the receipt
for Rs. 50,000/- and the SPA dated 11.09.1993 in favour
of Accused No.1 Adarsh Kumar were executed by the father
of Complainant but that did not transfer the right for taking over
the land in question and did not confer any right to Accused No.
1 Adarsh Kumar to sell the land in question. It is also stated since
the land was not demarcated in the lifetime of the father of
Complainant and hence, the father of Complainant was not
in a position to hand over the actual physical
possession to Accused No. 1 Adarsh Kumar in 1993.
Further, in the chargesheet, it is alleged that the Complainant
identified the signatures of his father, Late Sh. Rati Ram on the
receipt, SPA and Agreement to Sell all dated 11.09.1993. It is
further submitted in the chargesheet that during investigation, it
was established that the land in question was not demarcated in
the life time of Sh. Rati Ram and it was revealed that the land
was mutated in favour of accused persons Nidhi Mehra, Girish
Verma and Harish Mehra vide Mutation Order dated 06.05.1997.