JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar J. (Oral)

1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 155 dated 17.11.2005 registered under Section 36 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, Police Station Guraya, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners are joint owners of the agricultural land in village Atta and the petitioner-Darshan Singh was cultivating the land and petitioners in CRM-M-44411-2018 are residing in U.K. for last many years and are senior citizens. One Tarsem Singh approached the petitioner-Darshan Singh regarding the purchase of abovesaid land from the petitioners. The petitioner-Darshan Singh entered into a deal to sell the land to abovesaid Tarsem Singh. Tarsem Lal purchased the total land measuring 33 kanals-13 marlas from the petitioners. The petitioners executed total six sale deeds first in favour of Tarsem Singh, first being on 10.3.2005, second deed in favour of Roop Lal, third sale deed in favour of Dev Raj on 13.6.2005, fourth sale deed in favour of Roop Lal on 13.6.2005, fifth sale deed was executed by petitioner-Sewa Singh after coming from abroad in favour of Charan Dass on 13.11.2003 and the last i.e. 6th sale deed was executed by both the petitioners in CRM-M-44411-2018 in favour of Tarsem Lal on 21.4.2004. It was specifically mentioned in the sale deeds that that the sold land is only for the purpose of agriculture. Thereafter, the mutation qua the abovesaid land was sanctioned in favour of the respective purchasers. The abovesaid purchaser Tarsem Lal in connivance with other persons started selling the abovesaid agriculture land by issuing plots in the said land and the number of persons were allotted the plots. While noticing the issuance of plot by abovesaid Tarsem Lal and others, the Punjab Urban Development Authority Department while taking action against them lodged the present F.I.R. against the petitioners except the abovesaid Tarsem Lal and others.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the entire land owned by the petitioners has been sold to co-accused Tarsem Lal way back, from 2003-2005 by executing six sale deeds. The mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the purchaser by the Revenue Authority and the revenue record clearly indicates that nature of land is agricultural. Tarsem Lal after purchasing the agricultural land has carved out a Colony, for which the subsequent purchasers can only be held liable for any violation of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. Petitioner-Darshan Singh represented before the Jurisdictional Police Authority vide representation dated 02.02.2006 (Annexure P-3) for checking the veracity of the allegations and also the involvement of the petitioners. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phillaur, after investigation, concluded that the petitioners are innocent and he recommended action against the subsequent purchasers vide report dated 12.03.2007 (Annexure P-4). The said Tarsem Lal had also appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phillaur and admitted that he has purchased the land from the petitioners and thereafter they have carved out plots without the permission of the appropriate Government Authority and he further agreed to pay the necessary fee for compounding of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the FIR was registered in the year 2005 and the Jurisdictional Police Authority have prepared the un-traced report on 27.11.2007, however, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar Rural did not approve the same on 24.11.2009. The learned counsel refers to the reply dated 23.01.2020, filed by the State of Punjab, which clearly indicates that the petitioners have been declared innocent, as is discernible from para 3 of the said reply. He further refers to para 6 of the aforesaid reply and submits that the Greater