SANJAY SINHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under sections 397 and 401 read with section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure praying for quashing of criminal proceeding being Case: no. C-J2035 of 1978 now pending before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, Burdwan.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the present purpose may briefly be stated as follows: there is' a plot of land bearing Das no. 2047 appertaining to Khatian No. 621 of Mouza Narsinghbad having a total area of 93 decimals of land. The settlement records show that the nature of the land is agricultural. Out of the total area, 36 decimals were sold to one jagatpati Sinha who, since the purchase, has been cultivating the land as a paddy land. Out of the 36 decimals Jagatpati Sinha transferred 19 decimals to the present petitioners. The petitioner sold 8 decimals to one Tarulata Sharma on 13. 8. 76. Thereafter, Tarulata Sharma, while in possession of the land, gave notice to the competent authority under the, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, for transfer of the land, that was in September, 1977 and getting that notice the authorities felt that; some enquiry should be made as to how the petitioner could transfer the land to tarulata Sharma without prior notice a proceeding was started and eventually a complaint was fried. The petitioner's case all through has been that the land was agricultural and as such it was not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to notify the competent authority of the intended sale nor was it necessary to take permission before sale. It is not disputed before us that such permission is necessary only if the land is a vacant land within the meaning of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The petitioner having disputed that it was a vacant land, there was a direction to: enquiry as to the nature of the land and such enquiry was held by the Kanungo. The Kanungo's report dated 16. 12. 77 (Annexure 'f') reads as follows

(3.) EVEN after such a report having been made on spot enquiry; the competent authority directed the complaint to be filed upon a reference to instructions dated 19. 12. 1977 of the Ministry of Works and Housing, New Delhi, and held that since the accused petitioner had not fulfilled, the conditions laid down in the said instructions before the sale of the 8 decimals of land on 13. 8. 1976, she was liable to be prosecuted.