DOST MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dost Mohammad, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 51 dated 1.2.2002 registered under Sections 379 ad 427 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Sadar, Kamal.

(2.) The present case was registered on the statement of Satpal, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Uchana. According to the allegations made land measuring 2204 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in Village Uchana at different places was recorded in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. About six/seven years ago, the aforesaid Gram Panchayat had planted trees over 18 to 20 acres of land adjacent to the Chauhan Filling Station under the Social Forestry Scheme. Accused, Salamudin, Diwan Khan, Tej Ali, Dost Mohammad, Kanwar Pal and Sukhbir had illegally cut some trees and stolen the same. The case is still under investigation.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused while pressing for his bail has vehemently urged before me that the petitioner along with other proprietors of the village had filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act before the Director, Consolidation, Haryana for correction of entries of ownership in the revenue record because in the revenue record the Gram Panchayat had been wrongly shown as owner of 2204 Kanals 14 Marlas in Khata No. 528 situated in Village Uchana. It was further attended that the stand of the petitioner and other proprietors was accepted and as per order 4.12.2001, the Director, Consolidation, Haryana held the proprietors to be the owners of the land in dispute and ordered the correction of the entries in the revenue record to read (Jumla Malkan Va Digar Hak Daran Hasad Rasad Rakba Khewat) and on the basis of this order mutation dated 7.1.2002 was also sanctioned in the name of the proprietors, copy of which is Annexure-P.1. It was further pointed out by him that in the column of possession, the entry was recorded as Badastur which means that possession of the proprietors in respect of the aforesaid land continued with them. Further according to him the complainant-Sarpanch was inimical towards the petitioner and in order to seek vengeance, the present case was got registered by him. To support the stand taken, it was also explained by him that in the Jamabandi for the year 1997- 98, copy of which is Annexure-P.4, Phulla son of Mangal, Banwari son of Lijja and Ram Lal son of Bhajju were recorded to be in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 18 (6-19), 16 and 17 (14-14) and 102/7/8 (14-13) and the successors of the said cultivators had furnished affidavits, Annexures- P.5 to P.7, with the petition admitting the possession of Dost Mohammad over the said land. On the basis of these circumstances, it was stated that the petitioner be given the benefit of bail.