NABAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application u/s 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the orders dated 27. 6. 2008 and 2. 9. 2008 passed by the courts below. Vide order dated 27. 6. 2008 the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed u/s 203 Cr. P. C. and when the revision was preferred, that was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 2. 9. 2008. It appears from the facts of the case that plot no. 308 in the concerned village was recorded as a garden and was the reserved land of the Gram Sabha but inspite of this fact the father of O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 got his name recorded in the revenue records and O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 being his heirs sold the land to O. P. Nos. 4 and 5. When the matter was agitated through a complaint, that was dismissed and the revision was also dismissed. I have heard Mr. J. P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Singh that as the land was recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha there could be no occasion for the father of O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 to get his name recorded over the same and thereafter there could be no occasion for O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 to sell the same. It appears from the record and admitted to the applicant that the name of the father of O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 was recorded on the basis of a patta, which was duly approved by the concerned S. D. M. and that being so the best course would have been to get this patta cancelled first. When the name of the predecessor in interest of O. P. Nos. 2 and 3 was recorded in the revenue records, no fault can be found when they executed the sale deed in respect of the said land. Not only this that no malafide intention can be attributed to O. P. Nos. 2 and 3, there is also one more defect in the institution of the complaint. A complaint on behalf of the Gaon Sabha could be filed under an authority and because the complainant did not have such an authority, hence the revisional court was justified in holding that the complaint was not maintainable. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the application. The application is dismissed. .