IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 02.07.2025.

Dharampal Yadav ....Appellant.

VERSUS Satish Kumar and others ....Respondents.

***

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA ---

Present: Mr. Udit Mendiratta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.3.

****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

This appeal by the complainant is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 06.04.2021, whereby the Criminal Appeal preferred by respondents No.1 and 2-accused against their conviction recorded by the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 16.08.2018, had been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellate Court has erroneously accepted the appeal although there was cogent evidence warranting the conviction of respondent No.1 and the findings of the Trial Court were well reasoned and did not call for any interference. He also submits that mere corrections in the revenue record later would be of no consequence as the offence was complete when the entry in the mutation was carried out fraudulently.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that there was ambiguity in the statement of respondent No.1-Satish Kumar as recorded before the lower Appellant Court, whereby he had withdrawn his civil appeal regular, ostensibly on the basis of a compromise between the parties. This ambiguity had made its way into the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari. The mutation No.1301 had been erroneously entered regarding the land in village Karawara Manakpur on the basis of order dated 18.12.2009. The erroneous mistake had been corrected as the mutation was later cancelled to the satisfaction of both the appellant and respondent No.1. Therefore, no harm has been caused to the appellant and he had got his share of land.

4. Heard.

5. It is stated that one Nathu Ram allegedly owned a large parcel of land in village Karawara Manakpur, District Rewari. He had three sons, namely, Hari Singh, Shish Ram and Bihari. After the death of Nathu Ram, his three sons inherited the land in equal shares. Hari Singh had a son, namely, Satish Kumar, who is the accused-respondent No.1. Dharampal Yadav i.e., the complainant is the son of Shish Ram. Thus, respondent No.1 and complainant are first cousins. Bihari expired issueless on 30.11.1998 and after his death, mutation No.837 was sanctioned on 15.04.1999 (Copy is Ex.PW2/A), vide which his share (measuring 64 Kanal—7 Marla) fell equally in the hands of Hari Singh and Shish Ram. Respondent No.1 challenged mutation No.837 in Civil Suit No.329 of 1999 on the ground that deceased Bihari had in his will bequeathed his entire share to him. During pendency of the suit, it appears that Shish Ram expired and vide mutation No.1032 dated 15.02.2007 (Annexure A-4/Exhibit PW2/B) his share was transferred in favour of his LRs, including the complainant. The civil suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 17.09.2008. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Rewari. On 18.12.2009, the appeal and the suit were dismissed as withdrawn after the parties had arrived at a compromise. The compromise had been arrived at after respondent No.1 had made a statement that he would withdraw the suit and appeal provided the LRs of Shish Ram were willing to accept him as ‘owner of possession of ½ estate’. In the latter portion of the statement, he had also stated ‘i.e., 02 acres of land in village Karawara Manakpur and 2.5 acres of land in village Rahanawa’.

6. The complainant filed a complaint dated 14.08.2012 before the Magistrate, stating that respondent No.1, the then Patwari-respondent No.2 and other revenue officials in connivance with each other fraudulently got sanctioned mutation No.1301 (Annexure A-5/Exhibit PW2/C), thereby transferring 16 Kanal—2 Marla of l