IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
A.Kayambu - Petitioner
Versus
The State represented by, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.29561 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.15957 & 15958 of 2019
Decided On : 08-06-2021
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120(b), 109 r/w 167, 468, 471 - Seeking for execution of sale deed - order - Gist of the case is that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board implemented the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project with financial assistance of World Bank and allotted the house plots to the needy. During the year 1989, Tamil Nadu Housing Board totally acquired a land to extent acres at Ganapathy, Coimbatore - Portion of the lands developed into 2933 plots, out of which, 590 plots were allotted for the Economically Stronger Section, 1166 plots were allotted for Economically Weaker - Plots were allotted for Lower Income Group-1, 388 plots were allotted for Lower Income Group-2, 182 plots were allotted for Middle Income Group and 33 plots were allotted for High Income Group - Held, officials of the TNHB have clearly stated about the payments received from LW2 for allotment of plot and payment of monthly EMIs over the years. Now the files are found missing, corrections are made in the system and the official records of TNHB - Thus from the statement of witnesses and documents collected, the role of the petitioner along with other accused is well founded - Contentions of the petitioner that the complainant and the investigating officer being one and same is bad in law and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Mohan Lal Versus State of Punjab reported Supreme Court Cases” is not sustainable for the following reasons - 1096” held that Mohan Lal case requires consideration by a Larger Bench. The Hon'ble Apex Court in reference constituting a Five Judge Bench held by judgment - his Court on the legal aspects and on the facts and materials of the case, finds that the contention of the petitioner are not sustainable - Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and this Criminal Original - Petition stands dismissed.
ORDER :
The petitioner/A7, who is facing trial in Special C.C.No.1 of 2019 before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore, for offence under Sections 120(b), 109 r/w 167, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 468, 471, 420, 167 r/w 109 IPC and Sections 201 r/w 511 IPC and Sections 109 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has filed the above Criminal Original Petition.
2. The gist of the case is that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board implemented the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project with financial assistance of World Bank and allotted the house plots to the needy. During the year 1989, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board totally acquired a land to the extent of 291.19 acres at Ganapathy, Coimbatore. A portion of the lands developed into 2933 plots, out of which, 590 plots were allotted for the Economically Stronger Section, 1166 plots were allotted for Economically Weaker Section, 574 plots were allotted for Lower Income Group-1, 388 plots were allotted for Lower Income Group-2, 182 plots were allotted for Middle Income Group and 33 plots were allotted for High Income Group.
3. The witness K.A.Hajamoideen (hereinafter referred to as 'LW2'), S/o.Abdul Rasak applied for MIG plot in the above said scheme and he was selected and allotted in LOT by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as 'TNHB') vide order dated 29.12.1994 in Lr.No.A3/2224/1990 for the MIG plot No.1125 situated at Ganapathy Phase-I, Coimbatore measuring about 180 sq.mt value around Rs.1,26,225/-. Initially, LW2 made payment of Rs.50,490/- and he has to pay the remaining principal amount of Rs.75,735/- with interest at the rate of 12% in ten years i.e., Rs.1,603/- per mensum. LW2 has paid the amount of Rs.60,657/- and the interest amount of Rs.50,260/- during the period from 20.01.1995 to 17.02.2005. On 17.02.2005, LW2 approached the officials of TNHB for payment of balance amount of Rs.15,078/-. Despite repeated request made by LW2 seeking for execution of sale deed in favour of him, A1, the then Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer (under suspension), Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB Coimbatore; A2, the then Work Assistant (under suspension), Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB Coimbatore and A4, Bill Collector (Retired), Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB Coimbatore, neither informed the exact balance amount payable by LW2, nor chose to register the sale deed.
4. In such circumstances, during the year 2012, A5, the then Assistant (under suspension), Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB Coimbatore informed the petitioner/A7, who is the real estate broker about the meagre amount to be paid by LW2, since the petitioner is the habitual purchaser of Housing Board Plots in Coimbatore and also a broker in arranging the bogus purchasers. In pursuant to it, the accused made payment in the name of A3 and changed the records and made allotment in the name of A3 and sale deed was executed in his favour of A3, denying the original allottee (LW2). A5 during the period of suspension fabricated the bogus allotment order for the plot No.MIG 1125 in Ganapathy Phase-I in favour of A3. The original allottee was LW2, who almost made the entire payment. In execution of the common design, A2 entered the name of A3 in the place of LW2 in TNHB office computer and other records. In this case, A6 claims to be a relative of A3. The petitioner paid the amount of Rs.49,700/- on behalf of A3, when A3 was in Singapore. A1 approved the sale deed, authorized to execute sale deed in favour of A3 on 15.06.2012 and issued authorization letter. A4 signed in the sale deed as Superintendent, TNHB, Coimbatore and A6 and the petitioner/A7 have signed in the sale deed as witness.
5. All the accused to save themselves, after the commission of the above offences, had caused disappearance of the original allotment file of LW2. Thereafter, LW2 lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell,
Amit Kapoor Versus Ramesh Chander and another
Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.
Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa
Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat
Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar
State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.