Back
2012 jk fu 137 2012 RN 137
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ o (HIGH COURT)
U;k- vkj-lh feJk rFkk U;k- Jherh foeyk tSu
R.C. Mishra and Smt. Vimla Jain, JJ.
ehuk esgjk ¼Jherh½ fo- yksdk;qDr laxBu rFkk ,d vU;
Meena Mehra (Smt.) v. The Lokayukt Organisation and another
fjV ;kfpdk dza- 5959 lu~ 2008( 2571 lu~ 2011 rFkk izdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk dz- 4261 lu~ 2010 ¼tcyiqj½( fu.khZr fnukad 23-9-2011A
Writ Petition No. 5959 of 2008; 2571 of 2011 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4261 of 2010 (Jabalpur); Decided on 23.9.2011.
(1) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- Ss. 31, 113, 115 and 178 -- revenue Courts -- question of protection under sections 2 and 3 of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 -- it has to be examined from two different angles -- not only Judges protected but protection also extended to them who purporting to act in discharge of his official or judicial duty or function -- protection does not extend to acts purely administrative/ministerial/extrajudicial/alien to judicial duty -- Tahsildar Nazul entertained without jurisdiction application under section 113 of Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- without following procedure prescribed under section 115 of the Code -- application transferred to Naib Tahsildar Nazul -- by treating under section 178 of the Code -- partition order made in favour of a person who was not co-sharers -- it was not official or judicial duty to entertain such application under section 113 of the Code. AIR 1985 SC 470, AIR 1958 SC 232, AIR 1964 SC 264, AIR 1970 SC 1173, AIR 1977 SC 1323, 2001 (II) MPWN 154, 2004 RN 31, 2007 (5) MPHT 138, 2008 (2) JLJ 364, 2005 RN 221, ILR (2011) MP 1702 and 2011 MPLJ 365 referred to. [Paras 8 to 16
(2) Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 -- Ss. 2 and 3 -- question of protection of revenue Courts under -- it has to be examined from two different angles -- not only Judges protected but protection also extended to them who purporting to act in discharge of his official or judicial duty or function -- protection does not extend to acts purely administrative/ministerial/extrajudicial/alien to judicial duty -- Tahsildar Nazul entertained without jurisdiction application under section 113 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- without following procedure prescribed under section 115 of Code -- application transferred to Naib Tahsildar Nazul -- by treating under section 178 of the Code -- partition order made in favour of a person who was not co-sharers -- it was not official or judicial duty to entertain such application under section 113 of the Code. AIR 1985 SC 470, AIR 1958 SC 232, AIR 1964 SC 264, AIR 1970 SC 1173, AIR 1977 SC 1323, 2001 (II) MPWN 154, 2004 RN 31, 2007 (5) MPHT 138, 2008 (2) JLJ 364, 2005 RN 221, ILR (2011) MP 1702 and 2011 MPLJ 365 referred to. [Paras 8 to 16
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- scope of powers -- FIR before Lokayukt against revenue officers -- it is not possible to hold that FIR discloses no offence against petitioners -- no interference called for with the investigation under writ jurisdiction -- writ petitions dismissed without opinion on merits of case. AIR 1982 SC 949, ILR (2011) MP 1702 and 2011 (2) MPLJ, 365 referred to. [Paras 16 to 18
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- scope of -- offence of cheating and conspiracy -- FIR before Lokayukt -- matter required investigation -- interference not called for with the investigation -- Misc. Criminal Case dismissed without opinion on merits of case. (2007) 13 SCC 165 and (2006) 7 SCC 188 referred to. [Paras 19 to 26
R.C. Mishra, J. -- 1. These petitioners are interlinked as they relate to the same case registered on 31.1.2008 as Crime No. 08/08 at Special Police Establishment (Loyakut), Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC and section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’) against the petitioners and one Kishorilal Vishwakarma, the then Patwari of Halka No. 25/31 at Jabalpur.
2. W.P.Nos. 5959/2008 and 2571/2011 are the petitioners, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ or direction for quashing of the FIR, leading to registration of the case as against Smt. Meena Mehra and Vivek Tripathi, who at the relevant point of time, were posted respectively as Tehsildar (Nazul) and Naib Tahsildar (Nazul) at Jabalpur whereas M.Cri.C.No. 4261/2010 is the petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity the ‘Cr.P.C.’), moved by Alok Kumar Shrivastava, the then Nazul Officer at Jabalpur, for quashing of the FIR and the corresponding investigation as against him.
3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners shall be referred to by their respective names.
4. Background facts may be summarized as under :-
(i) One parcel of land, admeasuring 0.154 hectare located in Village Mahanadi bearing P.C.No. 25, settlement No. 663 and Khasra No. 30, was purchased by Smt. Dayabai as early as on 20.3.1943. In the revenue records, the land continues to be recorded in the name of Dayabai @ Phoolmati, widow of Diwan Bahadur P.N. Lakshmanan only.
(ii) On 14.3.2002, Shri Umesh Tripathi, Advocate submitted an application under section 113 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (for short ‘the MPLRC’) on behalf of Smt. Indira Pastala, wife of Augustin Pastala, resident of 9-A, Easter Plot, Bunder Kolava, Mumbai for correction of entry in the Khasra relating to the aforesaid land. It was asserted therein that in the year 1989, the entire land was mutated in her name only as the sole successor of Smt. Dayabai despite the fact that along with the mutation application, she had also filed copy of the family partition deed evidencing that half of the land had fallen in the share of her husband Augustin.
(iii) On 14.3.20002, petitioner Smt. Meena Mehra as Tehsildar (Nazul), upon the aforesaid application, directed registration of the case; publication of proclamation and also called for the report of the Patwari concerned. Thereafter, on 22.4.2002, observing that the land fell within the local, jurisdiction of petitioner Vivek Tripathi, that Naib Tehsildar (Nazul), Smt. Meena Mehra transferred the case to him.
(iv) On 4.4.2002, Patwari Kishorilal Vishwakarma furnished a false report indicating that the land had already been mutated in the name of Smt. Indira Pastala.
(v) On 28.4.2002, petitioner Vivek Tripathi raised question of jurisdiction in the light of provisions of section 178 of MPLRC (whereunder power to make partition has been conferred on Tehsildar); posed query as to the date on which the land was mutated in favour of Smt. Indira Pastala and also directed her counsel to produce copy of the corresponding order.
(vi) Pursuant to the order dated 28.4.2002, Shri Umesh Tripathi, Advocate, filed another application, under section 178 of the MPLRC, for getting the name of Augustin Pastala recorded as co-sharer in the land. Thereupon, while accepting the partition under section 178-A of the MPLRC as genuine transaction, petitioner Vivek Tripathi, by way of order dated 21.5.2002, granted the relief as prayed for by directing recording of names of Indira Pastala and Augustin Pastala as Bhumiswamis of the land.
(vii) On 27.6.2002, on being informed about the fact that in the original khasra, name of Smt. Indira Pastala was not recorded and Rin Pustika submitted on her behalf was also a forged one, petitioner Vivek Tripathi sought permission, under section 51 of the MPLRC
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
