SUSHIL ANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Miscellanous Nos. 5819-M of 1990 and 5822-M of 1990 shall be disposed of by this order as almost similar controversy is involved therein between the same parties. Both these petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing FIR Nos. 46 and 18 of the year 1993 of Police Station, Sohna District Gurgaon whereby the cases under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 and read with Sections 2 and 3 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 were registered against the accused petitioners, pertaining, to violation of the provisions, of the Punjab Land Preservation Act qua the protected land in the area of village Raisina and Sohna respectively.

(2.) THE brief resume of facts figuring in the respective first information report is almost similar except for location of the land in two different revenue estates. In FIR No. 46, it is averred by the Range Forest Officer, Sohna Forest Range that M/s. Ansal Estate Company through Mr. Sushil Ansal has taken illegal possession of the land falling in Killa Nos. 11, 20, 21 of Rect. No. 39, Kills, Nos. I to 25 of Rect. No. 40, Kills Nos. I to 5 Rect. No. 55 and Killa No. 1 of Rect No. 56 in the revenue estate of village Raisina although this land was declared as preserved area under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 through notification issued by the State of Haryana. It is further averred that the accused persons had resorted to construction of roads after cutting trees growing there on the land in violation of the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. In FIR No. 16/1990, the allegations pertain to taking illegal possession and laying out roads etc., on some land located in the revenue estate of village Sohna, in violation of the provisions of the above-referred Acts. After completion of investigation and on the basis of the demarcation report of the concerned revenue authorities, the prosecution had submitted the challans in both the cases before the trial Court by now.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.