Mohd. Usman @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Mohd. Usman (Halka Patwari at the relevant point of time) and Mohan Lal

(being the retired Land Record Officer) have approached this Court for assailing the order dated 28.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in revision No.40/2011 whereby, the revisional court dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners and affirmed the

order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the learned ACJM No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.314/2010 whereby, learned Magistrate framed charges

against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

Facts in brief are that the complainant Smt. Logari lodged a written report in the court of the ACJM No.3, Udaipur alleging inter alia that she is an

illiterate woman. Her father late Shri Nathaji Dangi died leaving behind only the complainant as his heir. During his lifetime, Shri Nathaji executed a

registered will dated 18.11.1983 in favour of the complainant bequeathing all his property to her. The complainant alleged that her cousin brothers

namely Keeka, Duna and Jagannath sons of Pura Dangi supported her at the time of death of her father and more particularly, for performing his last

rites and thereby, gained her sympathy. She started placing implicit reliance upon them and even allowed them to cultivate the land left to her by her

father on sharing basis. Some time after her father’s death, the three sons of Pura, named above, approached her and asked her to sign some

blank papers on the pretext that proceedings for mutation of the land in her name had to be conducted and her signatures were required for the same.

The complainant fell for the assurance given by the accused and signed some blank papers without realising the consequences thereof. The accused

misused the blank signed papers of the complainant and fraudulently got prepared the release deed of her land without her knowledge. The Sarpanch

and the revenue authorities, conspired with these accused and assisted them and got her land mutated fraudulently. The mutation entry was madeÂ

without following the due process of law and as per the complainant, all the accused persons conspired and indulged in the offences of fraud and

forgery and thereby deprived her of her lawfully owned property. The I.O., conducted thorough investigation and came to a conclusion that Keeka,

Duna and Jagannath Dangi fraudulently induced the complainant into signing blank papers and thereafter, got prepared the release deed of the

complainant’s land while keeping her in dark. The revenue officials and the members of the Gram Panchayat including the Sarpanch, etc.

conspired in the fraudulent design and deceitfully, entered the mutation in the names of these three accused persons thereby fraudulently depriving the

complainant of her land. The trial court, proceeded to frame charges against the accused petitioners and the other charge-sheeted accused for these

very offences. The accused unsuccessfully challenged the order passed by the trial court by filing a revision which too was dismissed as above.

Hence, the instant misc. petition.

Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that the petitioners acted bonafide in the discharge of their official

duties while participating in the mutation proceedings. They had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the release deed having been procured

fraudulently by the principal accused persons. The mutation was approved by the Gram Sabha. He further urged that even if it is assumed for a

moment that the mutation entry was made wrongly then also, no loss whatsoever was caused to the complainant because mutation is only a fiscal

entry under which, no proprietary rights are transferred. Thus, he implored the Court to quash the impugned orders and sought exoneration of the

petitioners from the charges. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the Supreme

Court decision rendered in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1989 and this

Court’s judgment in the case of Rameshwar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 452 and urged that the

impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Deepak Menaria learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by

the petitioners’ counsel and urged that the petitioners did not act bonafide while conducting the mutation proceedings. Departure was made from

the lawful procedure and the mutation was entered on the basis of a fraudulently procured release deed. The accused petitioners, actively participated

with the main accused in the conspiracy hatched to deprive the complainant of her lawfully owned land. They further urged that two competent courts

have recorded concurrent findings of facts affirming the prosecution of the petitioners for serious charges and as such, this Court should not feel

persuaded to exercise its inherent powers to interfere in the impugned orders.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders as

well as the record.

Suffice it to say that the law is well settled by a catena of judgments including the Supreme Court decision in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan,

referred to supra, that an entry of mutation is merely a fiscal entry and no proprietary/ ownership rights are created thereby. Thus, even if it is

assumed for a moment that the petitioners acted contrary to the procedure prescribed by law while conducting the mutation proceedings whereby, the

mutation entry of the land bequeathed upon the complainant by her father was transferred to the names of Keeka, Duna and Jagannath Dangi,

obviously no financial or any other kind of loss was caused to the complainant thereby because such entry can always be got rectified by simply filing

an application under the Land Revenue Act. The complainant has already taken recourse of revenue proceedings to get the entry rectified.

Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the complainant has not disputed her signatures on the release deed and rather stated that her cousins (the

main accused) procured the same taking advantage of her illiteracy and by keeping her in dark. Manifestly, the petitioners were not party to the

preparation of the release deed and cannot be presumed as having knowledge of this alleged fraud. Thus, no malafides can be attributed to the

petitioners for acting upon a release deed which admittedly bears the thumb impressions/ signatures of the complainant. The complainant had been

married in a different village and even as per her admitted case, she herself had allowed her cousin brothers, named above, to cultivate the land and,

therefore, the common knowledge in the village would be that these three persons had been given express right to use the same. The disputed

mutation entry was made after approval of the Gram Sabha and as such, ex-facie, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the offences alleged

because no malafides or mens-rea can be attributed to them in this matter. Furthermore, the petitioners are public servants within the meaning of Land

Revenue Act/ IPC and as such, their prosecution for actions which were genuinely performed by them while discharging their official duties, is

impermissible without seeking prosecution sanction from the competent authority.

In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing prosecution of the petitioners to be continued in this case

for the offences mentioned above is nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law.

As a consequence, the instant misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Udaipur and the order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the learned ACJM No.2, Udaipur as well as all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are

quashed qua the petitioners herein. However, trial of the other accused shall be continued as per law.