DHARAMVEER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appli ­cation has been filed by the applicant Dharamvir with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 208 of 2007 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B I.P.C., P.S. Kasna, district Gautam Budh Nagar.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sri Babu Singh, Lekhpal on 4.5.2007 at 11.20 p.m. against the applicant Dharmvir alleging therein that in a fraudulent man ­ner by committing fraud the land of the Gaon Sabha has been sold by the applicant. The land of khata No. 2 Khasra No. 1M area 5.0590 (its old No. 1MI/8 -16 -0 and 4 Ml/5 -12 -0 and 5 Ml/4 -3 -0 and 6 Ml/1 -9 -0 total 4 kita having the area of 20 bigha Pukhta of Goan Sabha Tilwara tehsil and district Gautam Budh Nagar was ordered to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha by the S.D.M. Sikandrabad on 30.3.1998, against the order dated 30.3.1998 a revision No. 19 of 1997, Mahabir and other v. Dharmvir and others and revision No. 31 of 1997, Dharamvir Singh v. Mahavir Singh and others, under section 219 L.R. Act were filed but both the revisions were dismissed and order dated 30.3.1998 was confirmed, but by manipulation the order dated 30.3.1998, could not execute in the revenue records the name of the Gaon Sabha was not recorded, concealing the same, the above mentioned land was sold by the applicant to Ajit Singh, Gyanendra Singh, Hatim Singh and Kuldeep Singh and ob ­tained illegal gain. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, the same has been rejected by the learned in -charge Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar on 28.2.2007, being aggrieved from the order dated 28.2.2008 the applicant has moved the pre ­sent bail application.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that at the time of the execution of the sale deed, the applicant was the owner of the land in dispute, his name was recorded in the revenue record and he was in possession of the same land, the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Lekhpal with ulterior motive. The order dated 30.3.1998 passed by the learned S.D.M. Si ­kandrabad was not a final order, it was challenged in the Court of Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut by way of filing a revision, after dismissal of the revision a 'writ petition No. 17788 of 2007, Dharamvir v. State of U.P. and others, has been filed before this Hon'ble Court, which is pend ­ing. Therefore, the allegation that the order dated 30.3.1998 became final, is absolutely false. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of the applicant on the basis of a family settlement vide order dated 30.9.1996 passed by the S.D.M Sikandra ­bad, the applicant was having the right to transfer the same land. The land in dispute was never recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha in the revenue record, it was recorded in tjne name of the applicant about 44 years prior to that it was in the name of the ancestors of the applicant. The applicant got exclusive right of the land in dispute in the year 1964. The applicant has not executed any forged sale deed. The applicant has filed the original Suit No. 169 of 2007 against the Gaon Sabha in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Divi ­sion) Gautam Budh Nagar with a prayer that he may not be dispossessed from the land in dispute because he was in posses ­sion since 1960 in respect of the same land, the father of the applicant namely Khushi Ram filed a writ petition No. 11606 of 1983 before this Court in the year 1983, in which the order dated 28.9.1983 was passed that till further order father of the applicant and others may not be dispossessed. The order of the learned S.D.M. was passed on 30.3.1998 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 4.5.2007 i.e. after nine years of the alleged incident. There is no plausible explanation of this inordinate delay. The F.I.R. has been lodged with mala fide intention. The appli ­cant had demanded the copies of khasra and khatauni for which the first informant had demanded the money, the same was not paid to him that is why the present F.I.R. has been lodged. The applicant was in service in the year 1973, he has been retired on 31.1.2001. He is an old man aged about 67 years suffering from heart ail ­ment. The applicant is having no issue, his wife is also ailing for a long period. This case is of civil nature, proper remedy of cancellation of the sale deed was available, is also surprising that in the present case Ajit Singh and two others who are vendees have not lodged any F.I.R. and no case for cancellation of the sale deed has been filed by the Gaon Sabha and the name of Ajit Singh and three others has been mutated in the revenue record. The applicant is an in ­nocent man. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He may be released on bail.