2025 INSC 461
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. AND
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.)
UNION TERRITORY OF
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Petitioner
VERSUS
BRIJ BHUSHAN
Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
12026 of 2024-Decided on 07-04-2025
Criminal,
Quashing
Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Corruption
- F.I.R. was registered under Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention
of Corruption Act, 2006 read with Section 120-B IPC -Alleged that the power of attorney holder landlords of the
subject land had colluded with the Tehsildar and together with the respondent
herein who was the Managing Director of the JKCHC obtained ‘fard Intikhab' dated
06.04.1989 which had led to the transfer of the lands in the name of the JKCHC
- The said transaction was alleged to be made in violation of Section 28(1) (d)
and Section 28-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 - It is
alleged in the F.I.R. that this act of the accused had conferred huge undue
benefits to the JKCHC and its members - Learned Single Judge has found that
there can be no criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of a transfer, which
is prohibited under the Act - The consequence is only of reversion of such
rights on the land to the State Government, which could also lead to
dispossession on reversion ordered by a Revenue Officer - Held that do not
agree with the learned Single Judge that no criminal proceedings will lie, for
reason only of the statute having not provided it; since the allegation of
corruption and criminal breach of trust, if substantiated, could lead to
conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC - The question of
indemnity under Section 29; which operates only if the acts complained of are
done in good faith, would have to be independently agitated by the officer of
the State who has been arrayed as accused - Respondent was the Managing
Director of the Cooperative Society which obtained the lands after verification
of the rights on the land from the Collector of the District - The acquisition
was also for a purpose of developing the land; which development, it is
admitted has already been completed and allottees of such lands having raised a
residential colony in the location - Obviously, no action under Section 28-A
has been taken by the State to repossess the lands - Do not see any allegation
against the respondent under the provisions on which the F.I.R. has been
registered but for a bland allegation of connivance with the officers of the
State - There is also no personal
benefit even alleged to have accrued to the party respondent herein - Find no
reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge of
the High Court.
(Para
6 to 8)
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran,
J. :- An F.I.R.
was registered under Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of
Corruption Act, 2006['the Act'] read
with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860['the I.P.C] in the year 2021 with respect to a transaction in land
that occurred in the year 1989. The
respondent herein who was the Managing Director of the beneficiary; the J &
K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd. ('JKCHC’, for brevity), which acquired
the subject land after payment of consideration, was arrayed as one of the
accused alleging offences under the above provisions along with the Tehsildar
and the power of attorney holder of the lands, alleging criminal conspiracy.
2. The respondent herein
successfully filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure['the Cr.P.C]. The impugned
order which quashed the F.I.R. No. 10 of 2021 is the subject of challenge in
the S.L.P. We have heard learned Counsel Sh. Pashupathi Nath Razdan appearing
for the State and learned Counsel Sh. Nanu Khera appearing for the first
respondent.
3. Suffice it to notice that
JKCHC proposed to acquire 30 kanals and 5 marlas of land in pursuance of its aims
and objects of developing residential colonies for its members; being the apex
society of the then Union Territory. The JKCHC applied for certification of the
existing right of land to the Collector Land Acquisition and after negotiation
with the landlords, the subject land was acquired for Rs. 31,500/- per kanal as
per a lease deed on 10.04.1989 registered with the Sub-Registrar's Office,
Samba. The land was developed into various blocks by the JKCHC and allotted to
its members on a 'first come first served' basis.
4. In the year 2021, the F.I.R. was
registered alleging that the power of attorney holder landlords of the subject
land had colluded with the Tehsildar and together with the respondent herein
who was the Managing Director of the JKCHC obtained ‘fard Intikhab' dated 06.04.1989
which had led to the transfer of the lands in the name of the JKCHC. The said
transaction was alleged to be made in violation of Section 28(1) (d) and
Section 28-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. It is alleged
in the F.I.R. that this act of the accused had conferred huge undue benefits to
the JKCHC and its members.
5. The learned Single Judge has
detailed the facts which speaks of the mutation of the land having been made in
the name of seven landlords, which the State had transferred to them; after it
vested in the State, when the original ownership rights were extinguished under
the Agrarian Reforms Act. The said persons on whom the land was vested by the
State appointed a power of attorney, who obtained the 'fard Intikhab' from the
Tehsildar leading to the transfer of the subject lands to the JKCHC.
6. The learned Single Judge also
extracted Sections 28 and 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act to find that any
transfer of rights of the land obtained under that Act, by way of sale, gift,
exchange, mortgage, will or by any other means whatsoever, is prohibited. In
the event of such a transfer, the rights conferred on the landlord under the
Agrarian Reforms Act vest back in the State. The learned Single Judge has found
that there can be no criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of a transfer,
which is prohibited under the Act. The consequence is only of reversion of such
rights on the land to the State Government, which could also lead to
dispossession on reversion ordered by a Revenue Officer. The learned Single
Judge also noticed Section 29 of the Act which saves any officer or authority
in respect of anything which is done in good faith under the Agrarian Reforms
Act.
7. We will not go into whether
criminal proceedings would lie under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and the I.P.C. as against the officers, since they are not
before us. We also do not agree with the learned Single Judge that no criminal
proceedings will lie, for reason only of the statute having not provided it;
since the allegation of corruption and criminal breach of trust, if
substantiated, could lead to conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act
and the IPC. The question of indemnity under Section 29; which operates only if
the acts complained of are done in good faith, would have to be independently
agitated by the officer of the State who has been arrayed as accused.
8. Insofar as the party
respondent is concerned, he was the Managing Director of the Cooperative
Society which obtained the lands after verification of the rights on the land
from the Collector of the District. The acquisition was also for a purpose of
developing the land; which development, it is admitted has already been
completed and allottees of such lands having raised a residential colony in the
location. Obviously, no action under Section 28-A has been taken by the State
to repossess the lands. In any event, we do not see any allegation against the
respondent herein under the provisions on which the F.I.R. has been registered
but for a bland allegation of connivance with the officers of the State. There
is also no personal benefit even alleged to have accrued to the party
respondent herein. We find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order
of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
9. The Special Leave Petition
stands dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
------