Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
1 CRR-847-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 847 of 2023
MANOJ TIWARI
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKT
Appearance:
Shri Sudeel Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2164 of 2023
RAMESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SPECIAL
POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, UJJAIN
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
(Reserved on 07.04.2025)
(Pronounced on 29.04.2025)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/29/2025
6:40:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
2 CRR-847-2023
Both the criminal revisions have been preferred under section 397
r/w section 401 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 challenging the order dated
190.01.2023 in special case no.01/2022 by Special Judge appointed
under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Ujjain
whereby charges under section 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 420 of the IPC r/w section 120-B of
the IPC and section 420 of the IPC have been framed against the
revision petitioner Manoj Tiwari and charges under section 420 r/w
section 120-B of the IPC and section 420 of the IPC have been framed
against the revision petitioner Ramesh.
2. Facts in brief are that a crime no.85/2013 was registered at
police station, Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, Division Ujjain
against Shri Ramesh S.Thethe, the then Additional Commissioner,
Ujjain, Shri Aditya Sharma, the then Tahsildar, Ujjain, Shri Manoj
Tiwai, Patwari Halka No.38, Ujjain, Shri Ramesh and other persons on
the allegation that a conspiracy was hatched with the land owner
(Ramesh) to return the surplus land that had vested in the State of
Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 and the possession was taken on 29.03.1985 and
possession was determined and for that purpose an appeal was preferred
on 27.11.2012 and the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Shri Ramesh S.
Thethe heard the appeal without jurisdiction and misusing the official
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/29/2025
6:40:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
3 CRR-847-2023
capacity a Panchnama was prepared by the present appellant dishonestly
and a report was prepared by Shri Aditya Sharma, the Tehsildar and
physical verification report regarding the land of 0.028 hectare of
survey no.1784/3, land of 0.431 hectare of survey no.1785, land of 0.091
hectare of survey no.1787, land of 0.040 hectare of survey no.1788, land
of 0.109 hectare of survey no.1789, a total area of 0.699 hectare was
ordered to return to revision petitioner Ramesh.
3. After investigation, it was found that the land of value of
Rs.71,92,000/- was mutated in the name of Ramesh and for that purpose
the then Tahsildar, Ujjain Aditya Kumar Sharma did not perform his
duty to remove the illegal encroachment and submitted dishonestly a
physical verification report in unusual haste without any objection.
4. Prosecution sanction was received against the revision
petitioner Manoj Tiwari and no sanction was required regarding revision
petitioner Ramesh s/o Radhakishan and a report under section 13(1)(d)
r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section
465, 471, 409, 420, 109 and 120-B of the IPC was submitted against the
revision petitioners keeping the investigation pending under section
173(8) of the Cr.P.C against Ramesh S.Thethe and Aditya Kumar
Sharma with a request that as and when the sanction is received the
matter shall be submitted to the concerned Special Court.
5. Special Case No.01/2022 was registered in the Court of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/29/2025
6:40:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
4 CRR-847-2023
Special Judge designated under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Ujjain, M.P and vide order dated 19.01.2023 the charges were framed as
mentioned in para-1 of the order regarding the alleged act of criminal
misconduct and cheating is committed during the period of 27.11.2012
to 06.12.2013. No charges were framed under section 467, 471, 409 and
109 of the IPC.
6. Challenging the legality of the framing of charges, the
revision petition No.847/2023 is preferred on the ground that the trial
court has failed to consider the fact that the present petitioner is working
as Patwari in revenue department and the present matter relates to land
ceiling department. The said department and its officers have to look
after the encroachment and its removal. Till date, no action has been
taken. The said department is separate department, therefore, the
petitioner cannot be held responsible for any act as alleged by the
respondent and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
7. It is also submitted that the Additional Commissioner has
issued the letter dated 29.11.2012 and the Tehsildar has sent the letter to
revenue inspector by making endorsement dated 01.12.2012 that the
report be called from Patwari by today positively. The RI has forwarded
the same letter on 02.12.2012 making remark to the petitioner that report
be sent to Tehsildar by 03.12.2012 and being a subordinate as per the
direction petitioner has done physical inspection. In the letter itself it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/29/2025
6:40:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
5 CRR-847-2023
was mentioned that the land is recorded in the name of State
government. Being a Patwari, the petitioner has prepared the actual
report on 05.12.2012 and sent to Tehsildar on 07.12.2012. In the report
it has clearly stated that Ramesh and others are in possession of the
land. Along with the report the petitioner has attached the Khasra
Panchsala wherein it was clearly mentioned that the land is recorded in
the name of government. In this way, the petitioner has performed his
duty in accordance with law. In view of this the impugned order
deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.
8. It is further raised that Tahsildar Aditya Sharma has not raised
any objection regarding Panchnama. Accordingly, petitioner cannot be
held responsible for the illegal act done by other accused. In similar
type of cases the respondent has not found any offence committed by
Patwari. This case cannot be treated on a different standard. The trial
Court has wrongly mentioned that present petitioner has not taken any
action for removal of encroachment. The removal of encroachment is
not the duty of the Patwari as per the Patwari Manual. There is no
single document to show that the petitioner has cheated any person or
authority. There is no document to show that the petitioner has caused
any illegal loss to any person or illegal benefit to himself. There is not a
single document to show that petitioner has done any type of corruption
in the entire case. The trial court failed to consider the Kabja
Panchnama prepared in the year 1985. At that time also, the possession
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/29/2025
6:40:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
6 CRR-847-2023
has been taken by the officials of Ceiling department. This clearly
shows that the revenue department has nothing to do with the said land.
Without instruction of Ceiling department, no other department can do
the work or proceedings in the ceiling land. The sanction taken against
the petitioner is not in accordance with law. The revision petitioner
Ramesh is not associated with the present petitioner. At the time of
performing the duty the petitioner has received letter from his immediate
officer RI and Tahsildar.
9. Criminal Revision No.2164/2023 is preferred on the ground
that on 29.03.1985 the proceedings of possession of the land held by the
joint family was a paper proceeding and was conducted ex-parte. The
petitioner Ramesh was in actual possession of the land. When the
petitioner came to know that his name has been deleted from the land of
his possession then he preferred the appeal with application for
condonation of delay to protect his title and possession and Additional
Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal as he was in actual
continuous possession of the land. The government has not granted
sanction against the then Additional Commissioner and the Tahsildar so
he cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
or under the provisions of the IPC as no one remains with him he has
conspired. The competent authority has assessed the compensation only
Rs.2,33,600/-. Accordingly, the valuation of Rs.71,92,000/- is
incorrect. Section 12 of the Urban Ceiling Land Repeal Act, 1999
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/29/2025
6:40:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
7 CRR-847-2023
confer a right of appeal. Accordingly, no illegality can be imputed on
filing the appeal to enforce his rights.
10. The contents of the petitions, the documents annexed thereto
and the arguments of learned counsel for the rival parties are heard and
perused.
11. Bare reading of the charge sheet reveals that vide order
dated 11.06.1996 of M.P Govt., the appellate authority under the Urban
Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was substituted as Divisional
Commissioner instead of Additional Commissioner and Ramesh
S.Thethe was posted as Additional Commissioner, Ujjain and Ramesh
s/o Radhakishan (revision petitioner) filed an appeal on 26.11.2012
before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain challenging the order dated
29.03.1985 in case No.54×6/78-79 of the competent authority under the
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and order dated
28.06.2000 in case no.22×11/84-85 by competent authority under the
Urban Land Ceiling, Ujjain along with condonation of delay and a
report was called from Tahsildar and Tahsildar called the report from the
petitioner and present petitioner submitted a physical possession report
to the Tahsildar to the effect that on a land of 2.925 hectares comprising
7 survey numbers a partition was effected between the brothers earlier
and revision petitioner Ramesh is in possession of 0.699 hectares
through fencing and Tahsildar, Ujjain submitted a report on 07.12.2012
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/29/2025
6:40:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
8 CRR-847-2023
to Additional Commissioner, Ujjain and Additional Commissioner,
Ujjain condoned the delay and also recorded the finding that he has
jurisdiction to hear this appeal vide order dated 07.12.2012 and admitted
the appeal for final hearing and vide order dated 11.12.2012 the appeal
was allowed and ordered to restore the possession of 0.699 hectares to
revision petitioner Ramesh s/o Radhakishan recording the finding that at
the relevant time the possession was taken by revenue inspector whereas
the Tahsildar was authorized to take the possession. The revenue
inspector is not authorized to take the possession of the land vested in
the government and the notice of possession was issued on 25.09.1984
whereas the proceedings for taking possession was conducted on
29.03.1985. Accordingly, the revision petitioner Ramesh was not aware
of the fact that on which date the possession has been taken and further
recorded the finding that the notice was not served on the revision
petitioner and the proceedings of taking possession on 29.03.1985 is
conducted ex-parte without notice and possession of the revision
petitioner is affirmed by the report of Patwari/revision petitioner Manoj
Tiwari.
12. The prosecution against revision petitioner Manoj Tiwari is
based on the allegation that petitioner prepared the Panchnama dated
05.12.2012 knowing that the said land have been vested in the Madhya
Pradesh State and the Panchnama was prepared committing forgery and
abusing the official capacity.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 4/29/2025
6:40:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317
9 CRR-847-2023
13. The proof of criminal misconduct by a public servant is a
fact in issue in the criminal proceedings and the fact in issue can be
proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence.
14. The suspicion of petitioners’ involvement arose due to the
possession report (false). Whether the suspicion is strong and support
the impugned charges framed or not is a question of degree of
complicity which cannot be decided at this early stage since this exercise
is to be left alone for the trial court to be conducted after recording and
marshaling of evidence.
15. The scope of contentions advanced before this court are
limited and, therefore, at this stage, it is not apposite to examine whether
the prosecution has established the necessary ingredients of section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 420, 120-B of
the IPC.
16. When we examine the facts of this case in the light of U.S.
(Upjeet Singh ) Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh – ILR 2024 MP
570 (DB), this Court does not feel that any illegality or impropriety was
committed by the trial court while framing charges against the
petitioners of both the revision petitions in regard to said offences.
Consequently, present revision petitions deserve no interference and are
dismissed as such.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11317 10 CRR-847-2023 (VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 4/29/2025 6:40:59 PM
