Sumant Sareen vs State
2004 Latest Caselaw 246 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18th August, 2003, whereby the learned CMM in his order framing charge has held that he finds no reason why the accused who was in illegal possession of Gram Sabha Land cannot be charged for an offence under Section 447/34 IPC in view of the material available on record.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased agricultural land measuring 5 bighas 8 biswas in Village Satbari, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi by a sale deed dated 7th January, 1981 and began cultivating the same. The Block Development Officer (South) on enquiry found that 16 biswas of land in khasra No.696 in Village Satbari belonging to the Gram Sabha has been trespassed upon by the petitioner. Consequently, he lodged an FIR No. 527/1997 at Police Station Mehrauli. On completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of material collected during investigation came to the conclusion that prima facie the accused had committed an offence under Section 447 IPC and framed charges accordingly.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that Section 84(2) of the Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 is a bar against proceedings under Section 447 IPC. He submits that vide order dated 19th December, 2003 in Crl.Rev.No.1042/2002, this court has held that Section 84(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a bar to proceedings under Section 441 IPC in case there is a trespass on agricultural land.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that Section 84(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is a bar against any action of trespass under the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. Section 84(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 reads as under :

"Where any person against whom a decree for ejectment from any land has been executed in pursuance of a suit under sub section (1) re-enters or attempts to reenter upon such land otherwise than under authority of law, he shall be presumed to have done so with intent to intimidate or annoy the person in possession or the Gaon Sabha, as the case may be within the meaning of Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code."

A bare reading of the aforesaid Section makes it abundantly clear that where a person against whom a decree of ejectment has been executed and he re-enters or attempts to r-enter upon such land, he shall be presumed to have committed an offence within the meaning of Section 441 of the Indian Penal code. This section is not a carta blanka for any person to walk into and trespass upon anyones property be it agricultural land or otherwise. The section is a deeming provision in case of admitted re-entry after a decree of ejectment has been executed. The same is not a bar to taking action in case of trespass under Section 441 IPC. The judgment referred to by counsel for the petitioner is on its facts where proceedings initiated under Section 84(2) of the Delhi Reforms Act were pending before the SDM and there was a finding by the SDM that the petitioner had been in occupation of the same for more than six years and therefore, held that proceedings under Section 86(A) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act are barred by time and not maintainable. It was in those circumstances where the rights of the petitioner would be determined that this court held the proceedings under Section 447 IPC could not be initiated.

5. The case in hand is quite different. Here the petitioner has intentionally encroached upon the Gram Sabha Land which is the subject matter of the present FIR resulting in a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on which report the Magistrate has framed a charge under Section 447 IPC. The order framing charge and proceedings emanating there from are not barred under Section 84(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. I am satisfied that order under challenge suffers from no infirmity, perversity, impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional error.

6. Crl.Rev.P. 821/2003 is dismissed. Crl.M.A. 1461/2003 also stands dismissed.