ARUN KUMAR KESHRI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this appeal under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the S.C./S.T. Act"), for grant of anticipatory bail, since they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.263/2022 registered at Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offence punishable under Ss. 186, 332, 353, 34 of the IPC ad Sec. 3(1)(?), 3(1)(?) of the S.C./S.T. Act.

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that Deepak Ekka, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ramanujganj, in pursuance of the order(s) passed by the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Ramanujganj for removal of encroachment made by the appellants in Nazul Plot No.950 admeasuring area 0.01/2 hectares, proceeded along with the team of the Tehsildar, Ramanujganj to the said place. The appellants were duly informed about the order passed by the Tehsildar, Ramunujganj orally as also through the mobile phone and a request was made by them to remove the encroachment However, the appellants resisted and obstructed the official work and also used filthy language against the officers and his team and pushed them. The video clip of such incident was prepared, however, due to the obstruction caused by the appellants, the encroachment could not be removed. Based on such allegations, the aforesaid offence under the IPC has been registered. Later on, since the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category, the offence under Sec. 3(1)(?), 3(1)(?) of the S.C./ST. Act has also been added.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants were in possession of the encroached land bearing plot No.950/2 admeasuring area 10 x 15 = 150 sq. ft. situated at Ramanujganj for many decades by constructing small shop over the said land. Earlier, an encroachment case was registered against the appellants and a penalty of Rs.500.00 was imposed on them in the year 1998-99. Thereafter, in the year 2009, again an encroachment proceeding was initiated against appellant No.1 Arun Kumar Keshari and a penalty of Rs.200.00 was imposed on him and an eviction order was also passed on 18/8/2009 under Sec. 248 of the CG Land Revenue Code (in short "the Code"),. Inspite of such eviction order, the appellants continued in unauthorised possession of the subject property. Later on, as per the policy promulgated by the State vide Circular dtd. 11/9/2019 for settlement of the Government land in favour of persons, who are in possession of the said land prior to 20/8/2017, the appellants preferred an application for settlement of the land in terms of the policy on 17/7/2020. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on such application filed by the appellants, the Revenue Inspector, Nazul Ramanujganj, after inspection of the spot, prepared a calculation sheet and found that the appellants have encroached upon some Nazul land and hence, recommended for its settlement as per the said policy. However, since the competent authority did not pass any order on the application filed by appellant No.1, he approached this Court by filing WPC No.2039/2022, in which, vide order dtd. 28/4/2022, the competent authority was directed to decide the application preferred by the appellant on 17/7/2020, taking note of the documents submitted by him as also the enquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 20/12/2020 before the Nazul Officer. It was also directed that the proceeding with regard to allotment be concluded expeditiously within a stipulated time. He further submits that in pursuance of such direction issued by this Court, the matter was taken up before the Nazul Adhikhari, Ramanujganj, who dismissed the application of the appellant vide impugned order dtd. 18/7/2022. He submits that since the order dtd. 18/7/2022 was not passed strictly in accordance with law, again a challenge was made before the High Court vide WPC No.4129/2022 and a contempt petition has also been filed, which goes to show that the said order has not attained finality. He would also submit that after passing of the order dtd. 18/7/2022, the State Authorities did not give breathing time to the appellants to remove the goods and articles kept in the shop encroached by them. In this regard, learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards Sec. 38 of the Code, which reads thus :