Bombay High Court
Bhaskar Sarjerao Darade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 18 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:22415
(1) criwp1034.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1034 OF 2022
BHASKAR SARJERAO DARADE
VS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, APP for the respondents No.1
Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2,3,5 & 6
Mr. R. V. Naiknaware, Advocate for the respondent No. 4
Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for the respondent No. 7
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1036 OF 2022
BHASKAR SARJERAO DARADE
VS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for the respondent No. 2
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, APP for the respondents/State
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 18th JULY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th AUGUST, 2025
P. C.
1. Both these writ petitions are arising out of the same
proceedings and therefore, are taken together. Both the petitions
are filed by the same petitioner-original complainant where
accused Vinod Garje i.e. respondent No. 2 in Cri. Writ Petition
1 of 11
(2) criwp1034.22
No. 1236/2022 and respondent No. 7 in writ petition No.
1034/2022 are the same. The facts in short are as follows facts.
2. That the present petitioner filed OMA No. 202/2016
in the court of learned JMFC, Pathardi against the respondents
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 166, 167, 465,
466, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the IPC. It
is alleged that accused No.1 has purchased the land alongwith
structure from his mother Sundarbai Garje. It is alleged that in
respect of the said land bogus entries are taken by the accused
persons in connivance with each other. The accused Nos. 1 to 6
are the Government Officers working in the Land Record
Department, Pathardi and one accused No.4 i.e. Nanabhau was
the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pathardi. The allegations
are that by taking entry in connivance with each other the area
of the land purchased by accused No. 1 is shown to be more
than what he purchased and thus the accused persons have
committed an offence.
2 of 11
(3) criwp1034.22
3. So far as Cri. Writ Petition No.1036/2022 is out of
the same facts from another complaint. In both the matters a
challenge is to the common order dated 30-05-2022 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal
Revision Application No. 43/2019 & 123/2019.
4. Both the revision application of the petitioner came
be dismissed. In Cri. Revision Application No.43/2019 a
challenge was to the order dated 01-03-2019 in Cri. M. A.
No.202/2016 passed by the learned Magistrate, Pathardi for not
issuing process under sections 204 of the Cr. P. C. and dismissed
the complaint against accused No. 1 for the offences punishable
under Sections 166, 167, 504, 506 of the IPC and issuing
process only for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467,
468 and 471 of the IPC and dismissed the complaint entirely
against accused Nos. 2 to 6 being public servant.
5. The revision application was filed by the accused
No.1 challenging order issuing process for the offences under
3 of 11
(4) criwp1034.22
Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
6. It is the case of the complainant i.e. present
petitioner that he purchased the land adm. 190 sq. mts. from
survey No. 3/1 situated at Pathardi on 18-03-2016 and is in
possession of the said land. On West side of his land there is plot
No.977, adm. 2640 sq. fts. out of that land, accused No. 1
purchased 1440 sq. fts. land alongwith construction on 22-11-
2022 from Sundarabai Garje. Mutation entry No. 3016 came to
be recorded in favour of the complainant. However, same is not
confirmed as accused No. 1 in connivance with accused No. 2 to
6 kept that entry pending. Thereafter, it is alleged that they
prepared false record in respect of the CTS No. 977 and shown
the area as 165.30 sq. mts. which was in fact 133.82 sq. mts.
Accused No.4-the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council
sanctioned the permission for construction on the said plot. That
entry is falsely taken. It is, thus, alleged that accused No. 1
encroached upon the land of the complainant. Accused Nos. 5
and 6 Surveyor wrongly measured the land showing excess land
4 of 11
(5) criwp1034.22
in favour of the accused No.1. On this complaint the learned
Magistrate issued process only against accused No.1 as stated
above and dismissed the complaint against other.
7. Mr. Narwade, learned advocate for the petitioner
vehemently argued that in the present case it is clearly seen that
accused persons have created false and bogus record in respect
of the land survey No. 977. A case was clearly made out against
all the accused persons. The learned JMFC, Aurangabad rejected
the compliant as against accused Nos. 2 to 6 being public
servant. He submits that even against accused No. 1 the process
ought to have been issued for the offence alleged in the FIR. Still
has issued the process only under sections 420, 465, 466, 467,
468 & 471. He pointed the sale deeds in favour of the accused
and complainant. He submits that notice was also given to the
accused persons but still no action was taken. Total land survey
No. 977 is 276.7 sq. mts. Out of the said land Sundarabai was
having 133.83 sq. mts. However, it was shown that the said
entry is of 22-12-2014. However, immediately on 29-12-2014
5 of 11
(6) criwp1034.22
the area is shown to be 165.30 sq. mts. in the name of
Sundarabai. Thus, it is clear that without following any
procedure the land in possession of the Sundrabai is shown to
be more. Thus, case of cheating is clearly made out. All the
entries are by the respondents. Clearly a case was made out to
issue process against them as well. Still no cognizance was
taken. A report was submitted by the Investigating Officer
stating that the area of the land is shown to be 165.30 sq. mts.
when in fact the land was adm. 133.83 sq. mts. and stated that
offence is made out. Still the court has failed to appreciate the
said fact and issued process only against accused No.1 only
under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 & 471 and rejected the
same for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 504,
506 against accused No.1 and wrongly rejected the entire
complaint against respondent Nos. 2 to 6. He submits that point
of sanction would not come at this stage as the respondents are
found to have indulged into totally legal act not connected with
duty. The observations by the learned JMFC are thus, not
correct. He invited attention to the report submitted by the
6 of 11
(7) criwp1034.22
office of the District Superintendent Land Record wherein it was
clearly stated that the officers & employees from his office have
cooperated and encouraged the encroachment on the said
survey No. 3405. Report was submitted on the application of the
petitioner. The petitioner had sought a sanction from the
authorities to prosecute the respondents by filing an application.
Said application was received on 24-05-2016 by the Chief
Assistant Superintendent City Survey Office. The Prevention of
Fragmentation Act, Commissioner Pune, which clearly shows
that sanction was solicited. However, same is not granted. Thus,
there is deemed sanction. The learned Sessions Judge failed to
appreciate all these facts. He submits that revision is wrongly
rejected. So far as application of mind, he submits that there is
no application of mind. In the operative part of the order, itself it
is seen that revision application No.43/2019 is dismissed.
Revision application No. 123/2019 is allowed. However, further
the the order shows that though the revision is dismissed, the
order of the Judicial Magistrate is set aside. This runs contrary
to each other. He submits that petitions deserves to be allowed.
7 of 11
(8) criwp1034.22
8. The learned advocate Mr. Nagargoje vehemently
submits that dispute is purely of civil nature. The land was
originally belonging to one Mohanlal who sold his 245.35 sq.
mts area to one Sumatibai. Thus, the area of 31.35 sq. mts.
remained with Mohanlal. While taking the entries in the land his
name was wrongly deleted from the remaining land. Sumatibai
sold the land 111.52 sq. mts out of her 245.35 sq. mts land to
one Abdul on 02-05-1980. Thus, remaining land was 133.83
with the Sumatibai. That land of Sumatibai sold to mother of
respondent No. 7 i.e. accused No. 1. She sold remaining 133.83
sq. mts land in 2015-2016 to one Vinod and Abdul & filed an
application for re-measurement of the land. It is thereafter land
35.83 came to be added to the land of Vinod and Abdul. Said
was never challenged by any of the parties. On 17-09-2016
District Superintendent of Land Record had cancelled re-
measuarement of the part of the land of CTS No. 977. He
restored entry in the name of Mohanlal to the extent of 31.35
sq. mts. He cancelled PR card of 977/1 and 997/2 and directed
8 of 11
(9) criwp1034.22
to keep one PR card of entire survey no. 977 by well reasoned
order. The entry is taken on the basis of order. He submits that
no record of the land of the petitioner is changed. There is no
loss caused to the petitioner. The officers have discharged their
duties. There was no application filed seeking sanction from the
higher authorities to file a complaint against the officers and the
employees of the Land Record. There is no record to implicate
the accused Nos. 2 to 6. It is only for the first time on 05-08-
2016, a complaint was made.
9. The learned advocate for respondent No. 4- Mr.
Naikware submits that the respondent No. 4 was Chief Officer of
Municipal Council. He has taken entry on the basis of
documents by doing proper verification. In the verification of the
complaint also there is no allegation made against the accused
No. 4.
10. It is submitted that accused No. 1- respondent No. 7
is the Medical practitioner. The learned advocate for the
9 of 11
(10) criwp1034.22
respondent No.7 adopts the argument of Mr. Nagargoje. He
further submits that in respect of the land a civil litigation is
going on. The petitioner has initiated the proceeding only to
grant 31 Sq. mtr. land. In any case all allegations would show
that this does not fall under the criminal act and is purely a civil
dispute. He invited the attention to the prayer in the suit filed by
the petitioner. Thus all the respondents prayed for rejection of
the both criminal writ petitions.
11. This court has gone through the judgment passed by
the learned Sessions Court in both the revisions. From the facts
stated above, it is seen that dispute is in respect of recording of
the area of the land. It is not the case of the petitioner that by
alleged entries his land is reduced or there is variation in area of
his land, as it is civil dispute is pending.
12. Considering the argument and the complaint it is
seen that allegations are in respect of the measurement of the
land. This court does not find any reason to interfere with the
10 of 11
(11) criwp1034.22
impugned order. There is no sanction obtained to prosecute the
accused Nos. 2 to 6. The learned Magistrate considering the case
against accused No. 1 has rightly issued process under sections
420, 465, 466, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC. This court does not
find any illegality or perversity in the order. There is no merit in
both the petitions. Therefore, both the criminal writ petitions
stand dismissed.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
VishalK/criwp1034.22
11 of 11
