The court held that allegations of forgery and conspiracy against revenue officers necessitate a trial, as their actions involved potential criminal liability despite claims of following official duties.

ORDER :

(J.C. DOSHI, J.)

1. By way of this petitions filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the FIR being I – C.R. No. 59 of 2018 registered with Babara Police Station, Rajkot Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1. It the is case of the complainant that 11 accused persons shown in the FIR have committed an offence as alleged in the FIR, by way of criminal conspiracy for mutating the name of one Bachu Bhavan in the revenue record village form no: 7/12 of land survey no: 194/75 which is Government vest land at village: Gad-kotadi, Ta: Babara, Dist: Amreli, and thereby, they have forged revenue. record, and it is further alleged that the succession revenue entry no: 2126 dated 27/04/14 was mutated in the revenue record and the same was certified bringing legal heirs of Bachu Bhavan on record.

3. Learned advocate Mr. SK Patel seeking quashment of FIR qua petitioners would submit that the petitioners were Circle Inspector and Mamlatdar in e-dhara at the relevant point of time. They are not named in the FIR. He would further submit that allegation of making forged revenue entries in Village Form No.7 and 12 has been levelled against the petitioners for land survey no: 194/75 which is Government vest land at village: Gad-kotadi, Ta: Babara, Dist: Amreli (in short “the subject land”), however, the present petitioners have followed their official duty as per guidelines issued in accordance with various circulars issued by the State of Gujarat and mutated revenue entry on the basis of last revenue entry available in name of Bachu Bhavan. He would further submit that name of deceased Bachu Bhavan was already mutated in village form Nos.7 and 12 of the subject land in the year 2004, as per GR dated 7.8.2004, only the computerized revenue records in village form Nos.7 and 12 and 8A would be considered as authentic revenue records for speedy, effective and transparent proceedings. He would further submit that in the case on hand, both the petitioners have followed their duty and have mutated names of legal heirs of the deceased Bachu Bhavan, whose name was already appearing in the revenue records and thereby, the petitioners have not committed any offence of forgery by fabricating forged documents / revenue entries as alleged in the FIR.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Patel referring to the SIT report dated 17.7.2017 (Annexure F) would submit that even in the SIT report, nowhere, the names of the petitioners are appearing nor it is stated that the present petitioners are involved in making false revenue entries of fabricated and forged sale deeds to grab the government traverse land. Referring to the circular of the State of Gujarat dated 23.5.2014 (Annexure E), he would further submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2282 of 2011, whereby, it is observed that “Police shall not enter into the disputes pertaining to revenue entries. Even on the basis of alleged entry, if sale deed is entered into civil remedies are to be undertaken for setting aside such sale deed.” The immunity has been provided to the revenue officers from being prosecuted for mutating entries following the provisions of law. Therefore, he would submit that the present petitioners’ name have not been alleged or mentioned either in SIT report or in FIR, nor they have played any active or passive role in alleged commission of the offence, by allowing the petitions, the petitioners, who are protected since 20.9.2018, immunity to them from prosecuted be extended.

3.2. Learned advocate Mr. Patel referred to section 125P of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1979, to submit that no legal proceedings shall lie against the State Government or any officer in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done by or under this Code. Therefore, he would submit that s