"Allahabad High Court Considers Plea to Quash Criminal Case Over Alleged Illegal Sale of Government Land in Bareilly"

The petitions—Applications U/S 482 Nos. 22134, 41154, and 21921 of 2023—were filed by individuals including Ramandeep Singh, Amandeep Singh, and Arvinder Singh, along with others, all of whom were accused of involvement in land transactions concerning Khasra No. 825 in village Biharman Nagla, Bareilly. The land in question, measuring approximately 0.7714 hectares, was declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and allegedly transferred to the BDA on 16 November 1990.

According to the FIR registered on 13 November 2022 by a Junior Engineer from the BDA, the land was illegally sold in 2003 by legal heirs of the original tenure holders to M/s S.K. Associates at a value significantly below the circle rate. Over the years, S.K. Associates is alleged to have sold parts of this land to several private individuals for a combined consideration of over ₹3 crore between 2021 and 2022. The FIR accuses the applicants of cheating, forgery, and violating provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act.

Petitioners’ Arguments

Counsel for the applicants strongly argued that the entire criminal case was a civil dispute being converted into a criminal matter with the intent to harass and malign the petitioners. They maintained that the applicants, including directors of Alliance Builders and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., had acquired the land legally from the heirs of the erstwhile tenure holders and were bona fide purchasers.

They argued that at the time of the 2003 sale, the names of the sellers were recorded in the revenue records and the title did not reflect government ownership. Furthermore, the mutation in favor of M/s S.K. Associates had been completed through legal proceedings and later canceled on civil grounds, which were ultimately resolved by compromise.

Importantly, they highlighted that no purchaser from M/s S.K. Associates had alleged being defrauded, and that any wrongdoing by revenue officials in failing to reflect the government’s ownership in Khatauni could not be attributed to the petitioners.

They contended that the alleged possession memo dated 16.11.1990 (transferring land to BDA) predated the issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Ceiling Act and was not served to the heirs of the original landowners, making the transfer of possession suspect and possibly ineffective under law.

The applicants also pointed out that M/s S.K. Associates had filed a writ petition against the BDA in the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed. However, the Supreme Court, in SLP No. 10139/2023, ordered status quo on the property in May 2023, making the matter sub-judice and undermining the basis for criminal proceedings.

Allegations by State and BDA

The State of U.P. and BDA countered the petitioners’ claims, asserting that the land had been declared surplus and vested in the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. A notification under Section 10(3) was published on 27.06.1990, followed by possession being transferred to the BDA through a memo dated 16.11.1990.

It was argued that once land is vested under Section 10(3) and possession is handed over, any subsequent transaction is void ab initio. Therefore, the sale deed executed in 2003 and the further sale of portions of that land by M/s S.K. Associates in 2021-22 constituted not only civil wrongs but also criminal acts.

The prosecution also pointed to findings during the investigation which allegedly showed a nexus between the petitioners and revenue officials who had suppressed the order to mutate the BDA's name. Statements of officials like the Tehsildar and Lekhpal suggested deliberate non-compliance with directions to enter State ownership in revenue records, thereby facilitating illegal sales.

Legal Proceedings and Analysis

The High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, took into account both factual developments and key Supreme Court precedents regarding quashing of criminal proceedings.

The Court was asked to consider whether the ingredients of offences under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, and 120B IPC along with Section 28(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act were met.

In defense, applicants relied heavily on judgments such as Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar (2009), which clarified that only a purchaser deceived into buying land without valid title could allege cheating—not the prior titleholder or state. Similarly, in Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007), the Supreme Court emphasized that intent to deceive at the inception of a transaction is critical to proving cheating.

The applicants argued that in the present case, the alleged victim—the BDA—was not the party to whom any false representation was made, nor had it suffered direct monetary loss due to sale transactions by S.K. Associates.

Regarding forgery charges, the defense claimed that none of the sale deeds or documents were shown to be falsified or fabricated in the technical sense. The documents were lawfully executed, registered, and relied upon real entries in revenue records—even if those records were incorrect due to administrative failure.

On the urban planning violation charge, it was pointed out that no development work had been carried out on the disputed land and no written notice had been served by the Vice-Chairman of BDA, which was a precondition to invoking penal provisions of Section 28(4) of the Act.

Concluding Observations

The matter presents a classic conflict between civil title disputes and the criminalization of property transactions, especially when rooted in historical revenue irregularities and administrative negligence. The High Court is now tasked with balancing the principles of preventing abuse of process with the legitimate prosecutorial interest of the State.

Whether the petitioners acted in good faith relying on existing land records, or knowingly facilitated fraudulent sales of government land, remains under judicial scrutiny. The reserved judgment will likely turn on key questions: Was possession ever effectively transferred to the State? Did M/s S.K. Associates and its associates know about any ceiling order violations? And critically, is criminal liability justifiable in the absence of direct deceit, fabrication, or material gain from a wrongful act?

The outcome will not only affect the present petitioners but also set a precedent for numerous land-related disputes across urbanizing districts where government land is allegedly encroached or traded under dubious circumstances.