GURDEV SINGH Vs. SURINDER SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-79
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 21,2014

GURDEV SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
SURINDER SINGH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NEERJA BHARGAVA VS. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-197] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-2-90] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner and Respondents 1 and 2 are brothers. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala (the Additional CJM) being Complaint No. 55 dated 14-6-2008 against the petitioner and Respondent 3.
(2.)In the complaint, the complainants alleged that an agreement of exchange of land was entered into between the complainants and the petitioner wherein land measuring 12 kanals 3 marlas i.e. 243/852 share out of land measuring 42 kanals 12 marlas belonging to the complainants was transferred to the petitioner and in lieu of this, land belonging to the petitioner measuring 12 kanals 3 marlas i.e. 243/730 share out of total land measuring 36 kanals 10 marlas was transferred to the complainants. On execution of the said agreement, the possession of the land was also exchanged on 22-3-2005. Accordingly and as per the exchange agreement, Respondent 3 recorded the exchange mutation in the revenue record vide Rapat No. 616 dated 30-4-2005 and Exchange Mutation No. 14599 was sanctioned by the Tahsildar, Patiala.
(3.)According to the complainants, Respondent 3 and the petitioner hatched a conspiracy and tampered with the revenue record of Village Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala in respect of the aforesaid land. According to the complainants, Respondent 3 and the petitioner wrote the exchanged area as 14 kanals 3 marlas instead of 12 kanals 3 marlas causing wrongful gain to the petitioner and wrongful loss to them. According to the complainants, on the basis of the illegal and fraudulent entries made by Respondent 3 in the revenue record, the petitioner is trying to grab 2 kanals of land from the complainant. The petitioner and Respondent 3 have, therefore, played a fraud upon the complainants and cheated them. According to the complainants, though they approached the police, the police did not take any action. The complainants, therefore, filed the present complaint before the Additional CJM as aforesaid.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.