BHARGAV DILIPBHAI DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the applicant - original accused No. seeking the following main reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts as per the case of the applicant in this applicant are as such that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser, who has purchased the undivided share of agricultural lands falling in revenue Survey Nos. 244/3, 244/5, 245/2, 249/1, 250 and 251/1 situated in village -Tighra, Taluka - Pardi of District Valsad by way of registered sale deed from the legal heirs of deceased Bhikhabhai Bavabhai Desai, and from those owners whose names were certified as the co-owners and occupiers of the aforesaid lands for valid consideration and after the execution of those registered sale deeds, the petitioner requested the revenue authorities for the same being entered into the revenue records for being mutated, who have relying upon the registered sale deed ordered the mutation after holding inquiries. It is further the case of the applicant in this application that the complaint filed by the complainant revolves around the allegation that entry no. 1535 was certified in the year 2002 and the names of seven persons including the complainant was entered in the revenue records and on the basis of the aforesaid entry, the other co-owners have sold their undivided share excluding the complainant to the applicant by way of separate registered sale deeds. The applicant herein has got entry No.1535 made in the year 2002 behind the back of the complainant and got the names of Icchiben Gopalji, Chanchalben, Jasuben, Sorabsha Sui (Pardiwala), Paliben and the names of the three brothers including the complainant and despite the applicant having purchased the share of his eldest brother Mohanbhai and despite the fact that Maganbhai had Will his 1/4 share to his son, and despite the complainant being the 3/4th owner of the property, the persons, who are not the owners of the property, according to the complainant, have sold the same to the applicant. It is further the case of the applicant in this application that on the other hand, the applicant being a bona fide purchaser has neither participated in the making of the disputed entry no. 1535, which was certified in the year 2002 but under reasonable belief and bona fide impression that the said entry has become final opted to purchase undivided share of those sellers in the agricultural lands from the joint owners. Therefore, there is no question of the applicant having prepared any documents or created any documents so as to defraud or cause loss to the complainant or even make alteration in the entry so as to attract the offences as alleged. It is further the case of the applicant in this application that the complainant had not initiated any procedure of any nature in any court of law in respect to the disputed entry no. 1535 till the execution of the registered sale deeds in favour of the applicant and even till the certification of the revenue entries in favour of the applicant in the revenue records till 2010. Moreover, all the legal heirs, who have executed the registered sale deeds in favour of the applicant have filed individual affidavits confirming their action of selling their undivided shares in the property and further asserted that they were the co-owners and were entitled to execute the respective sale deeds. Hence, the present application is preferred.

(3.) Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Jal Unwala assisted by Mr. Zubin Bharda, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - complainant and Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.