Point of law: Authority of High Court under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. or under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is fairly well settled and if the facts so warrant, there is no fetter on the power of this Court to obviate or correct the miscarriage of justice in an appropriate case by exercising its extensive supervisory jurisdiction under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. or its inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. without being moved by any party. Accordingly, the third issue is answered in affirmative

ORDER :

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.

1. This application u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by applicants Praveen Kumar and Vijai Shankar Mishra for quashing of the order dated 25.9.2002 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Allahabad whereby Misc. Application No. 172/XII/2002 (Ram Surat Pasi vs. Vijai Shankar and another), P.S.-George Town, District-Allahabad, moved on behalf of opposite party no. 2 u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed and directions were issued to lodge the F.I.R. and to investigate into the matter and submit report of investigation before the Court.

2. It appears that after filing of this petition the operation of the impugned order was put in abeyance. Eventually the matter has come up now to be heard and decided finally.

3. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today in the court, is taken on record.

4. Heard Shri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Imran Ullah, Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants and Shri Ankit Saran, Advocate assisted by Shri Atharva Dixit, Advocate holding brief of Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Learned A.G.A. has also been heard and record has been perused.

5. Brief facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the applicant no. 1 was working as S.D.M. (Sadar), Allahabad at the relevant point of time and the applicant no. 2 was working as Nayab Tehsildar (North) in the office of applicant no. 1. In the year 2002, the applicant no. 1 after being selected in the Indian Police Service (I.P.S.) was waiting for his appointment and training schedule for the same. According to the pleadings, there was a land of high economic worth being Plot No. 408 (admeasuring about 10 bighas) in Mauza Fatehpur Bichhua, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District-Allahabad, which had market value of Rs. 16 crores at the time of filing of this petition in the year 2002. The said piece of land being nazul land was a government property and as such, it could not have been sold or purchased by anyone without proper sanction of the State Government. The pleading of the instant petition reveals that the land in question is situated in the midst of the city in posh prime locality of George Town, Allahabad. It has also been pleaded in this petition that the said 10 bighas of land having plot no. 408 had a long lineage of history and the ownership thereof along with other lands (total 509 bigha and 6 biswa) travelled from Ex-Zamindar Maharaja Sewai Ram Singh of Jaipur up to the State Government and ultimately it was being managed, controlled and governed by the Board of Revenue and the land of said Gata No. 408 along with other gata numbers was transferred to the Municipal Board vide order No. 2125N/XI-868, dated 04.08.1911. The land in question i.e. approximately 10 bighas land of Gata No. 408 was entered into the register of government property (nazool) as 'pond' at serial no. 16 having entry of transfer of land by the Board of Revenue. Subsequently when certain unscrupulous persons made efforts to illegally trespass and possess the land in question, a report about the status of land was called by the District Magistrate, Allahabad from the Additional District Government Counsel (Civil), Allahabad namely Maya Shankar Srivastava, who submitted report dated 07.09.1999 with an opinion that along with certain legal formalities, the possession of land in question is liable to be resumed by the State Government in the interest of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

6. It has also been pleaded in this petition that the Chairman, Board of Revenue circulated a letter No. G865/5-9-R/2001 dated 24.01.2002 to all the Commissioners and District Magistrates of State of U.P. giving the reference of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision given in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamla Devi and others reported in 2001 (92) RD 689 (SC) with specific instructions that the public lands be secured, managed and m