Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 603
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Petitioner
Versus
Brij Bhushan – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12026 of 2024
Decided On : 07-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar
For the Respondents: Nonu Khera, Sanjay Chakraborty, Mohan Lal Sharma
Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Section 5(2) read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 – Sections 28 and 28-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Financial irregularities in acquisition of land – FIR quashed by High Court vide impugned Judgment – Allegation of corruption and criminal breach of trust, if substantiated, could lead to conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC – Question of indemnity under Section 29 which operates only if acts complained of are done in good faith, would have to be independently agitated by officer of State who has been arrayed as accused – Insofar as party respondent is concerned, he was Managing Director of Cooperative Society which obtained lands after verification of rights on land from Collector of District – Acquisition was also for a purpose of developing land which has already been completed and allottees of such lands having raised a residential colony in the location – No action under Section 28- A has been taken by State to repossess lands – No allegation against respondent under provisions on which F.I.R. has been registered but for a bland allegation of connivance with officers of State – There is also no personal benefit even alleged to have accrued to party respondent – Order of Single Judge of High Court affirmed. (Paras 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
F.I.R. was registered under Section 5(2) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in year 2021 with respect to a transaction in land that occurred in year 1989. Respondent herein who was Managing Director of beneficiary; J & K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., which acquired subject land after payment of consideration, was arrayed as one of accused alleging offences under above provisions along with Tehsildar and Power of Attorney Holder of lands, alleging criminal conspiracy.
Findings of Court:
There is also no personal benefit even alleged to have accrued to party respondent herein. No reason to interfere with well- reasoned order of Single Judge of High Court.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Headnote:
Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Section 5(2) read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 – Sections 28 and 28-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Financial irregularities in acquisition of land – FIR quashed by High Court vide impugned Judgment – Allegation of corruption and criminal breach of trust, if substantiated, could lead to conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC – Question of indemnity under Section 29 which operates only if acts complained of are done in good faith, would have to be independently agitated by officer of State who has been arrayed as accused – Insofar as party respondent is concerned, he was Managing Director of Cooperative Society which obtained lands after verification of rights on land from Collector of District – Acquisition was also for a purpose of developing land which has already been completed and allottees of such lands having raised a residential colony in the location – No action under Section 28- A has been taken by State to repossess lands – No allegation against respondent under provisions on which F.I.R. has been registered but for a bland allegation of connivance with officers of State – There is also no personal benefit even alleged to have accrued to party respondent – Order of Single Judge of High Court affirmed. (Paras 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
F.I.R. was registered under Section 5(2) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in year 2021 with respect to a transaction in land that occurred in year 1989. Respondent herein who was Managing Director of beneficiary; J & K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., which acquired subject land after payment of consideration, was arrayed as one of accused alleging offences under above provisions along with Tehsildar and Power of Attorney Holder of lands, alleging criminal conspiracy.
Findings of Court:
There is also no personal benefit even alleged to have accrued to party respondent herein. No reason to interfere with well- reasoned order of Single Judge of High Court.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. An F.I.R. was registered under Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 20061 [‘the Act’] read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 [‘the I.P.C.’] in the year 2021 with respect to a transaction in land that occurred in the year 1989. The respondent herein who was the Managing Director of the beneficiary; the J & K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd. (‘JKCHC’ for brevity), which acquired the subject land after payment of consideration, was arrayed as one of the accused alleging offences under the above provisions along with the Tehsildar and the power of attorney holder of the lands, alleging criminal conspiracy.
2. The respondent herein successfully filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3 [‘the Cr.P.C.’] The impugned order which quashed the F.I.R. No. 10 of 2021 is the subject of challenge in the S.L.P. We have heard learned Counsel Sh. Pashupathi Nath Razdan appearing for the State and learned Counsel Sh. Nanu Khera appearing for the first respondent.
3. Suffice it to notice that JKCHC proposed to acquire 30 kanals and 5 marlas of land in pursuance of its aims and objects of developing residential colonies for its members; being the apex society of the then Union Territory. The JKCHC applied for certification of the existing right of land to the Collector Land Acquisition and after negotiation with the landlords, the subject land was acquired for Rs. 31,500/- per kanal as per a lease deed on 10.04.1989 registered with the Sub- Registrar’s Office, Samba. The land was developed into various blocks by the JKCHC and allotted to its members on a ‘first come first served’ basis.
4. In the year 2021, the F.I.R. was registered alleging that the power of attorney holder landlords of the subject land had colluded with the Tehsildar and together with the respondent herein who was the Managing Director of the JKCHC obtained ‘fard Intikhab’ dated 06.04.1989 which had led to the transfer of the lands in the name of the JKCHC. The said transaction was alleged to be made in violation of Section 28(1)(d) and Section 28-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that this act of the accused had conferred huge undue benefits to the JKCHC and its members.
5. The learned Single Judge has detailed the facts which speaks of the mutation of the land having been made in the name of seven landlords, which the State had transferred to them; after it vested in the State, when the original ownership rights were extinguished under the Agrarian Reforms Act. The said persons on whom the land was vested by the State appointed a power of attorney, who obtained the ‘fard Intikhab’ from the Tehsildar leading to the transfer of the subject lands to the JKCHC.
6. The learned Single Judge also extracted Sections 28 and 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act to find that any transfer of rights of the land obtained under that Act, by way of sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, will or by any other means whatsoever, is prohibited. In the event of such a transfer, the rights conferred on the landlord under the Agrarian Reforms Act vest back in the State. The learned Single Judge has found that there can be no criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of a transfer, which is prohibited under the Act. The consequence is only of reversion of such rights on the land to the State Government, which could also lead to dispossession on reversion ordered by a Revenue Officer. The learned Single Judge also noticed Section 29 of the Act which saves any officer or authority in respect of anything which is done in good faith under the Agrarian Reforms Act.
7. We will not go into whether criminal proceedings would lie under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the I.P.C. as against the officers, since they are not before us. We also do not agree with the learned Single Judge that no criminal proceedings will lie, for reason only of the
