Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 513/2013
YASHPAL TYAGI
Petitioner
Through Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Mr. Umesh, Advs.
BAIL APPLN. 513/2013
YASHPAL TYAGI
Petitioner
Through Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Mr. Umesh, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI
Respondent
Through Mr. Manoj Ohri,APP with SI Sandeep Singh, PS Burari
Respondent
Through Mr. Manoj Ohri,APP with SI Sandeep Singh, PS Burari
BAIL APPLN. 723/2013
SATPAL TYAGI
Through
SATPAL TYAGI
Through
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI
Through Petitioner Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Mr. Umesh, Advs.
Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Sandeep Singh, PS Burari
Through Petitioner Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Mr. Umesh, Advs.
Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Sandeep Singh, PS Burari
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
10.05.2013 By this petitionthe Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIRNo.
45/2013 under Section 420/34 IPG registered at PS Burari.
BAIL APPLNs. 513/2013 & 723/2013 page 1 of5 2013:DHC:7055
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the course of investigation Sections 420/ 427/ 447/ 465/ 468/ 471/ 34/ 120B IPC have been added to the abovementioned FIR. Learned counsel contends that the complainant Himadri Shekhar Tyagi who is the cousin brother of the
Petitioners has no locus standi to lodge the complaint. In the writ petition earlier filed by the mother ofthe complainant being W.P.(Crl.) 703/1998 an affidavit was filed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control
Department, Govt. ofNCT. As per the affidavit DDA was not aware ofthis piece of land was encroached by PWD and further Irrigation and Flood
Control department had encroached into the land of PWD and DDA the third department ofState who acquired the entire remaining land at village
Dhirpur never complained about any shortage ofland. Reliance is placed on
Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2009) 4 JCC 2753 to contend that in case the recital is false, the same would not amount to forgery. Itis further contended that lands were sold in the year 1994 to 1996 and no complaints have been made by the purchasers ofthe land in question since than.
LearnedAPP on the otherhand has taken me through the contents of
BAILAPPLNs. 513/2013 723/2013 the FIR and filed astatus report enlisting the petitions filed relating to this matter. It is pointed out that on the directions of this Court demarcations were conducted a number of times. The Petitioners objected to the demarcations repeatedly and on subsequent demarcations also it was found that the Petitioners despite having obtained the compensation in relation to this land, sold the same to the purchasers and concealed material facts.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The investigation conducted so far reveals that vide notification dated 15"^ February, 1997, the Union of
India acquired 155 bigha and 5biswas of land in village Jharoda Mazra
Burari vide award No. 40/79-80 for construction ofsupplementary drain and consequently the Irrigation and Flood Control department became the owner ofthe said land. On March, 1979 the possession ofthe land was taken by Revenue officials and handed over to the Flood Control and Irrigation department. On 4^'' February, 1994 the Petitioners filed an indemnity bond in LAC No. 111/1980 before the learned ADJ claiming themselves to be the owner and in possession of the land relating to different khasra numbers being the legal heirs of late Nardev and got the compensation of the said land. Subsequently, in the year 1994 the Petitioners encroached upon
BAIL APPLNs. 513/2013 &723/2013 page 3of5 Khasra No. 30/21, 30/22, 31/16/2 and 31/25 which was the land belonging to the Irrigation and Flood Control department, carved out plots and sold them to innocent people.
This land which has been sold to different people is the bone of contention. No doubt, the persons who purchased the land have not come forward, however in these cases repeated litigations were filed and repeatedly demarcations were got conducted on the directions ofthis Court.
The Petitioners challenged the demarcations, however their objections were dismissed. Finally, the order ofthe Financial Commissioner was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court, wherein this Court dismissed the petition on 29"' January, 2010 and imposed a cost ofRs. 10,000/- on the Petitioners.
This Court upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 15^
August, 2008 and confirmed the demarcation as correct. The order ofthis
Court has not been challenged by the Petitioners. The facts thus show that the Petitioners despite having claimed compensation of the land and by encroaching on Government land have sold the same tothe purchasers.
The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that if the facts stated in the recital of the document are false, the same would not amount to
BAILAPPLNs. 513/2013 723/2013 a forged document is contrary to Section 464 IPC wherein illustration 'd' clearly shows that ifthe recital in the document are wrong, the same would also amount to forgery.
In view of the facts of the present case I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail. The petitions are dismissed. Any observation made hereinabove will not betreated as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case during trial.
MUKTA GUPTA, J MAY 10, 2013 'ga' BAIL APPLNs. 513/2013 & 723/2013 page 5 of5
10.05.2013 By this petitionthe Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIRNo.
45/2013 under Section 420/34 IPG registered at PS Burari.
BAIL APPLNs. 513/2013 & 723/2013 page 1 of5 2013:DHC:7055
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the course of investigation Sections 420/ 427/ 447/ 465/ 468/ 471/ 34/ 120B IPC have been added to the abovementioned FIR. Learned counsel contends that the complainant Himadri Shekhar Tyagi who is the cousin brother of the
Petitioners has no locus standi to lodge the complaint. In the writ petition earlier filed by the mother ofthe complainant being W.P.(Crl.) 703/1998 an affidavit was filed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control
Department, Govt. ofNCT. As per the affidavit DDA was not aware ofthis piece of land was encroached by PWD and further Irrigation and Flood
Control department had encroached into the land of PWD and DDA the third department ofState who acquired the entire remaining land at village
Dhirpur never complained about any shortage ofland. Reliance is placed on
Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2009) 4 JCC 2753 to contend that in case the recital is false, the same would not amount to forgery. Itis further contended that lands were sold in the year 1994 to 1996 and no complaints have been made by the purchasers ofthe land in question since than.
LearnedAPP on the otherhand has taken me through the contents of
BAILAPPLNs. 513/2013 723/2013 the FIR and filed astatus report enlisting the petitions filed relating to this matter. It is pointed out that on the directions of this Court demarcations were conducted a number of times. The Petitioners objected to the demarcations repeatedly and on subsequent demarcations also it was found that the Petitioners despite having obtained the compensation in relation to this land, sold the same to the purchasers and concealed material facts.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The investigation conducted so far reveals that vide notification dated 15"^ February, 1997, the Union of
India acquired 155 bigha and 5biswas of land in village Jharoda Mazra
Burari vide award No. 40/79-80 for construction ofsupplementary drain and consequently the Irrigation and Flood Control department became the owner ofthe said land. On March, 1979 the possession ofthe land was taken by Revenue officials and handed over to the Flood Control and Irrigation department. On 4^'' February, 1994 the Petitioners filed an indemnity bond in LAC No. 111/1980 before the learned ADJ claiming themselves to be the owner and in possession of the land relating to different khasra numbers being the legal heirs of late Nardev and got the compensation of the said land. Subsequently, in the year 1994 the Petitioners encroached upon
BAIL APPLNs. 513/2013 &723/2013 page 3of5 Khasra No. 30/21, 30/22, 31/16/2 and 31/25 which was the land belonging to the Irrigation and Flood Control department, carved out plots and sold them to innocent people.
This land which has been sold to different people is the bone of contention. No doubt, the persons who purchased the land have not come forward, however in these cases repeated litigations were filed and repeatedly demarcations were got conducted on the directions ofthis Court.
The Petitioners challenged the demarcations, however their objections were dismissed. Finally, the order ofthe Financial Commissioner was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court, wherein this Court dismissed the petition on 29"' January, 2010 and imposed a cost ofRs. 10,000/- on the Petitioners.
This Court upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 15^
August, 2008 and confirmed the demarcation as correct. The order ofthis
Court has not been challenged by the Petitioners. The facts thus show that the Petitioners despite having claimed compensation of the land and by encroaching on Government land have sold the same tothe purchasers.
The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that if the facts stated in the recital of the document are false, the same would not amount to
BAILAPPLNs. 513/2013 723/2013 a forged document is contrary to Section 464 IPC wherein illustration 'd' clearly shows that ifthe recital in the document are wrong, the same would also amount to forgery.
In view of the facts of the present case I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail. The petitions are dismissed. Any observation made hereinabove will not betreated as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case during trial.
MUKTA GUPTA, J MAY 10, 2013 'ga' BAIL APPLNs. 513/2013 & 723/2013 page 5 of5
JUDGMENT