JUDGMENT :

1. These Criminal Writ Petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

In S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 462/2018:-

“In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this criminal writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, writ, order or direction:-

a. the respondents may kindly be directed to place on record the ECIR No. JPZO/09/2015 and the same may be ordered to be quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner, its partners and its employees with all consequential directions;

b. all proceedings initiated by the respondents consequent upon the registration of ECIR against the petitioner, its partners and its employees may kindly be quashed;

c. any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

d. costs of the writ petition may kindly be passed n favour of the petitioner.”

In S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 18/2018:-

“In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to-

a. issue appropriate writ quashing the ECIRs and all incidental proceedings initiated thereto;

b. issue orders that no coercive action is taken by the Respondents against the Petitioner till final disposal of this Writ Petition; and

c. issue orders or directions for any other appropriate relief in favour of the Petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. At the outset, a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the petitioners that since review petitions as against the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Criminal No. 4634/2014) decided on 27.07.2022, therefore in view of the present controversy being akin to the one therein, no adjudication ought to be made by the High Court, at this stage.

3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by Mr.K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Faraz Khan, Mr. MS Husain, Mr. Anup Kumar Pandey & Mr. Farman Bilal Rayeeni on VC; Dr. Shamshuddin on VC & Mr. S.Tabrez on VC, appearing on behalf of petitioner-M/s. Sky Light Hospitality LLP (in short, ‘Sky Light’); Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Mehta, appearing on behalf of petitioner-Mahesh Nagar, are that in the year 2007, land admeasuring 31.61 hectares (125 Bigha) situated in Village Gajner, Tehsil Kolayat, Bikaner was allotted to one Natha Ram (12.65 hectares i.e. 50 bighas) s/o Kesha Ram and Hari Ram (18.96 hectares i.e. 75 bighas) s/o Luna Ram, whereafter on 19.11.2007, Natha Ram sold his portion of land to one Mr. Rajendra Kumar Swami s/o Gopal Das Swami; mutation No.120 was duly recorded in regard to such sale. Hari Ram acting through Power of Attorney (in short, ‘POA’), namely, Gugangar, sold his portion of land to one Mr. Kishore Singh.

3.1 On 04.01.2010, Rajendra Kumar and Kishore Singh, acting through their POA, namely, Ashok Kumar sold the aforementioned lands to petitioner-Sky Light, acting through his authorized representative, namely, petitioner-Mahesh Nagar.

3.2 On the same date i.e. 04.01.2010, land admeasuring 37.94 hectares was purchased by petitioner-Sky Light from Satish Goel, Baburam Goel, Ghanshyam Bansal, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal and Kailash Agarwal, for a consideration of Rs.42,00,000/-.

3.3 On 23.01.2012, petitioner-Sky Light sold the above-mentioned lands, admeasuring 31.61 hectares (12.65 + 18.96) and 37.94 hectares to M/s. Allegeny Finlease Private Limited for a consideration of Rs.2,81,13,540/-.

3.4 On 08.08.2014, the Colonization Commissioner informed the concerned Collector regarding certain forged pattas upon the basis of which, the aforementioned lands were allotted, and thus, suggested cancellation of the concerned mutation entries i