UTTAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial court dated 8th April, 2004 by which the petitioner's application filed under Section 79 read with Sections 239 and 245(2) IPC was dismissed by the trial court. Brief facts are that the Police Station Kotwali Pali received a letter dated 2.2.2001 by which the Tehsildar, Pali informed that Tehsildar, Pali submitted a report on 27.1.1996 alleging therein that one Uttam Chand S/o Mohanlal resident of Pali encroached upon the land of Khasra no.1411 measuring one and half bigha and the proceedings against the said Uttam Chand S/o Mohanlal was initiated under Section 91(6) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. A notice was given in that proceeding to the said Uttam Chand S/o Mohanlal, which was served upon the said Uttam Chand S/o Mohanlal on 29th Dec., 1995. It is alleged that despite that notice, the said Uttam Chand S/o Mohanlal did not remove his illegal possession from the land in question. In view of the above facts, the criminal case may be registered against the said Uttam Chand S/o Mohanlal obviously under Section 447 IPC.

(3.) In the investigation, the statement of Tehsildar Gangaram and Patwari Jugraj was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The site was also inspected in the presence of Patwari Jugraj. The copies of the record were obtained from the office of the Tehsil and also from the office of Patwari concerned. The copies of the record of case registered under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was also taken. During investigation, the statement of officer of the Municipal Board, Pali - Narendra Pal Sharma was also recorded and he stated that for the land in question Pattas nos. 3646 dated 12th April, 1973 and 3852 dated 29th Oct., 1974 were issued in the name of Mithalal S/o Mohanlal and these Pattas were issued for the land which is falling in the Khasra no.1411. Said Narendra Pal Singh also submitted a written report stating that land was sold by Municipal Board in public auction, which was also taken on record during the investigation. The Pattas issued by Municipal Board are registered by the Sub-Registrar, Pali and copies of Pattas were also obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pali. After investigation, the concerned SHO submitted final report in the court on 10.1.2002. In the final report findings were recorded that constructing of factory over the land in question was in the knowledge of the concerned Patwari in the year 1991, however, the proceedings for eviction of the occupant was initiated under Section 91(6) of the Land Revenue Act against one Uttam Chand S/o Mohanlal and for that a report was made on 27.1.1996. The maximum punishment is of three years and, therefore, in view of the fact that incident took place in the year 1991, the criminal proceedings could have been initiated upto 1994 only whereas report has been submitted in the year 1996 after the expiry of period of limitation and as per the statement of Patwari Jugraj, the possession of Uttam Chand S/o Mohanlal was since last 20 to 25 years over the land in question that causes suspicion about the allegation that encroachment was made in the year 1991. Be that as it may be, the other facts which are more relevant were that the Pattas for the land in question were issued by the Municipal Board, Pali and those Pattas are registered and its record was available in the Municipal Board, Pali itself.