Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shiv Narain And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Home Secy. Lkw. U.P. And Another - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 9919 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 7259 (4 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.3

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9919 of 2005

Shiv Narain and another                 vs.            State of U.P. and others

Connect with

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos.10182 of  2005, 10122 of 2005, 10728 of 2005,  10896 of 2005, 10860 of 2005, 11248 of 2005, 10397 of 2005, 9987 of 2005, 10724 of  2005, 10739 of 2005, 10743 of 2005.

Hon.Amitava Lala,J.

Hon.Shiv Shanker,J.

All the writ petitions, as numbered above, are taken by this Court as bunch cases to hear out and decide by common order.

Upon hearing learned counsel  appearing for the parties, we have come to know that the dispute is with regard to notification issued by the Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred as K.D.A.) for acquiring the land of the petitioners following the notifications originally  issued by the State  under Section 117 of the U.P. Jamindari Abolition And  Land Reforms Act, 1950. According to them, by the notification of the State, the lands can be acquired  to be given to Gaon Sabhas and local authorities. According to the petitioners, they are either tenure holders or purchasers from the tenure holders, therefore, the acquisition, if any, by K.D.A. cannot be made in respect of such land holders in view of exception under  the Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the K.D.A. contended before this Court that according to the respondents K.D.A., the lands were taken by Gaon Sabha  from the State are given to K.D.A.. However, K.D.A. alleged that by virtue of appropriate notification dated 6.9.1978 the land of 85 villages (list of the villages  annexed along  with counter affidavit) was vested in KDA. Again by notification dated 6.9.1986 Gaon Sabha land of 227 villages were notified to have been vested to K.D.A.. Large scale of complaints regarding encroachment upon the public land has been made. Joint survey was conducted. Ultimately it  revealed that in addition to encroachment some of the persons sold the land  acquired by K.D.A. claiming thereto as transferred land. Therefore, the F.I.R. has been lodged against such persons including petitioners in different case crime numbers under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C. in the appropriate police stations of  District Kanpur Nagar. All the petitioners are similarly placed but their grievances, are little different factually. Civil suit has been initiated for declaration and demarcation of the land in question at least in oue case.  It has also been contended   by one that transfer has been caused by his/her predecessors.  Under such circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the F.I.R. should be quashed  being unsustainable in nature, basically in view of case of  AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others).

We have carefully gone through the guidelines as given in the aforesaid case reference. According to us,  so long   on the notification exists the F.I.R., if any, as allegedly lodged by  the K.D.A will exist. We cannot  put the curt before the horse by saying  that F.I.R. will be quashed but notification will exist. We have no  jurisdiction to determine their right in criminal writ jurisdiction. It has to be declared by civil court or by a court having civil writ jurisdiction. It is well known that civil court's judgement and order will have binding upon the criminal court. If the petitioners succeed therein automatically the face value of the F.I.R. will evaporate  otherwise the F.I.R. will exist.

In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to say that the F.I.R. will be quashed. But since we find that the dispute appears to be quasi civil in nature  following order can be  passed-:

Investigation of Case Crime No.813  of  2005, under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar will be  concluded within a period of three months from the date, on which a certified copy of this order is presented before him. The petitioner/s  is/are directed  to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in all possible manner. If the Investigating Officer or informant found himself aggrieved due to falsification, misstatement,  fraud,  non-cooperation  with  the Investigating Officer or any other reasons whatsoever   relevant   for   the   purpose,   they are at liberty to apply for recalling/variation/vacating/modification of the order.

However, the petitioner/s  will not  be  arrested in the aforesaid case crime number till the submission of chargesheet/final report, if any.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

However, no order is passed as to costs.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.