Hari Om And 2 Others vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10204 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Hari Om And 2 Others vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 4 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:53456
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 338 of 2024   
 
   Hari Om And 2 Others    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Nirmal Singh Yadav, Divya Yadav, Pranjali Mirdha   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Dharm Trivedi   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 14
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.     

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Dharm Trivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

The instant criminal appeal under Section 18 of the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in Misc. Case No. 217 of 2022 by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Gangsters Act, under Section 16 of the Act regarding land Gata No. 343/0.699 Hectare and Gata No. 370/0.353 Hectare situated at Village Naya Gaon Jat Police Station Paswaon, Tehsil Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that vide Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order dated 23.02.2024 which is quoted as under:

"1. Heard Ms. Divya Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.01.2024 by which learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 rejected the application for release of land Gata No. 344/0.699 htr. and Gata No. 371/0.353 htr.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that property in question is as Gata Nos. 344/0.699 htr. and 371/0.353 htr. of Village- Naya Gaon Jat, Police Station- Pasgaon, Tehsil- Mohamdi, District- Lakhimpur Kheri. She further submits that registered agreement dated 23.12.1994 was executed by Sarwati Devi who was recorded tenure holder of the property in question, after taking sale consideration, in favour of the appellants. She further submits that on the contrary, Sarwati Devi was avoiding to execute sale deed in aforesaid regard, as a result, regular suit no. 90 of 1996 was filed by the appellants before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lakhimpur Kheri for execution of sale deed, which was allowed on 23.07.1997 in favour of the appellants; but in the meantime, Sarwati Devi executed sale deed on 27.01.1998 in favour of one Azaz Khan. She further submits that on 28.07.2022, sale deed was executed in favour of the appellants in compliance of judgement and order dated 23.07.1997 passed in regular suit no. 90 of 1996 (supra), thereafter, their names were mutated in the revenue records. The proceeding under the provisions of Gangster Act has already been initiated against Azaz Khan. She further submits that property land Gata No. 344/0.699 htr. and 371/0.353 htr. is also attached vide order dated 08.06.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in the most mechanical manner and when this fact came into notice of the appellants, they moved an application before the District Magistrate for excluding the aforesaid property, but the said application was rejected on 14.11.2022 and the matter was referred to the Additional District and Sessions/Special Judge, Gangster Act for further proceeding U/s 16 of U.P. Gangster Act. It is further submitted that application was filed by the appellants before the learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lakhimpur Kheri for release of the aforesaid property, but the same was also rejected in the most mechanical manner without considering the judgement and order passed dated 23.07.1997 passed in regular suit No. 90 of of 1996 as well as without considering the sale deed dated 28.07.2022 which was executed in favour of the appellants. It is, thus, submitted that the property in question was already mutated in the name of appellants, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of appellants, but he does not dispute the fact that the judgement and order dated 23.07.1997 was passed by the competent court in Suit No. 90 of 1996 in favour of the appellants and the sale deed dated 28.07.2022 was executed in favour of the appellants, in compliance of aforesaid judgement, their names were mutated in the revenue records.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri as well as other relevant documents; it is evident from the record that Sarwati Devi was the recorded tenure holder of the property in question, she executed registered agreement dated 23.12.1994 in favour of the appellants, as sale deed was not executed by her, then the regular suit No. 90 of 1996 was filed by the appellants before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lakhimpur Kheri, which was allowed on 23.07.1997, but in the meantime, another sale deed was executed by Sarwati Devi in favour of Azaz Khan for same property. Later on, in compliance of the judgement and order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lakhimpur Kheri, the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellants on 28.07.2022 and the property was mutated in their names. Presently, the name of appellants is in the revenue records. But all these relevant facts were not considered by the trial court, thus, the impugned order passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 05.01.2024 is hereby set aside.

6. In view above, the present appeal is allowed.

7. District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to consider the application of appellants afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order after considering all the aforesaid facts in accordance with law.

8. Office is directed to communicate this order to concerned authority, forthwith."

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that vide the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri was directed to consider the application of the appellants afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order and in compliance thereof, the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri has passed the order and the property was released in favour of the appellants, while considering that the same is not acquired by nexus of any offence, thus, submission is that the present appellants may also be granted the same relief.

The learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3 could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

The learned Counsel for the State has also failed to dispute the contentions aforesaid.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the observations made in the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024, the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, who is directed to consider the application of the appellants afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order after considering all the aforesaid facts and the law, laid down in the order dated 23.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2024, within a period of 60 days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned.

The trial court record be transmitted back to the court concerned.

The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

September 4, 2025

kkv/