{"id":371959,"date":"2026-01-07T17:00:15","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T11:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=371959"},"modified":"2026-01-08T17:42:34","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:12:34","slug":"allahabad-hc-25-year-old-illegal-land-lease-case-quashed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/07\/allahabad-hc-25-year-old-illegal-land-lease-case-quashed\/","title":{"rendered":"Dead Witnesses, No Proof, 25-Year Delay: Allahabad HC Quashes “Afterthought” Case Against Man Over 1997 Illegal Land Lease"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Disclaimer:<\/span> This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Allahabad High Court:<\/span> In a criminal appeal filed by an accused in a 1997 illegal agricultural leasing case, the Single Judge Bench of Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J., allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not named in the FIR, no specific role or overt act was attributed to him, the dispute is predominantly civil and revenue in nature, the proceedings were initiated after an unexplained and inordinate delay of more than two decades, the provisions of the SC ST Act were invoked without satisfying the mandatory statutory ingredients, and the State did not take any action to cancel the alleged forged leases.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

In 1997, about 282 persons were granted leases of agricultural land by the competent authority, which were subsequently approved. Later on, complaints were received alleging that some allottees were ineligible and that the land so allotted was transferred to private persons by execution of sale deeds through manipulation of revenue records and forged documents.<\/p>\n

The present FIR was filed by the Revenue Inspector in 2022, alleging that there were irregularities in the allotment and subsequent transfer of agricultural land of Village Chitahara, Tehsil Dadri. The FIR further alleged that certain persons, acting in connivance with others, committed forgery in revenue entries, showed enhancement of land area, and transferred land in violation of statutory provisions, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer and wrongful gain to the beneficiaries. In some cases, the land meant for members of the Scheduled Caste community was alienated in contravention of law, resulting in the invocation of Section 3(1)(f)<\/a> of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989<\/a> (“SC ST Act”), along with offences under Sections 420<\/a>, 467<\/a>, 468<\/a>, 471<\/a>, 384<\/a> and 120-B<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (“IPC”).<\/p>\n

Thereafter, the accused herein was summoned at a subsequent stage by the Trial Court. Aggrieved, he filed the present appeal under Section 14-A(1)<\/a> of the SC ST Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The accused herein contended that the allegations pertain to transactions involving the leased land of Village Chitahara dating back to 1997, which were subject to multiple judicial proceedings and ultimately validated by competent Revenue Courts. Furthermore, the charge sheet includes various prosecution witnesses, out of which five witnesses had died years before the investigation commenced, exposing the fabricated nature of the investigation. The accused herein further contended that he was not named in the FIR, and neither the FIR nor the charge sheet mentioned any individual act attributable to the accused herein to satisfy the basic ingredients of the alleged offences.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n

At the outset, the Court stated that from a careful examination of the FIR, charge sheet, and accompanying material, it was evident that the allegations against the accused herein were general and omnibus. No specific role, overt act, or individual transaction has been attributed to the accused herein to constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged.<\/span> Thus, the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal<\/span>, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335<\/a>, were clearly attracted.<\/p>\n

The Court further stated that the dispute arose out of land allotments made in 1997 and subsequent revenue proceedings. The allegations are primarily related to alleged irregularities in revenue records, which have already been the subject matter of civil and revenue adjudication. Thus, the Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of law as per the law laid down in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>,(2019) 11 SCC 706<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court found that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420<\/a>, 467<\/a>, 468<\/a>, 471<\/a>, 384<\/a>, and 120-B<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> were not made out against him. The Court stated that, “There is no material indicating dishonest intention at inception or preparation or use of forged documents by the accused herein.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding the invocation of the SC ST Act, the Court noted that the FIR and charge sheet did not disclose that the alleged acts were committed on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The Court referred to the decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand<\/span>, (2020) 10 SCC 710<\/a>, wherein it was held that a mere reference to the Scheduled Caste land or status of the informant is insufficient to attract the provisions of the SC ST Act.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the impugned cognizance order dated 20-03-2023 was passed routinely and mechanically, without recording satisfaction regarding the existence of prima facie material against the accused herein. Such an approach was impermissible in view of the law laid down in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate<\/span>, (1998) 5 SCC 749<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Court noted the following facts:<\/p>\n