Crl. Misc. No.M-4482 of 2011 -1- IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-4482 of 2011 .... Date of Decision:26.04.2011 Rajesh Verma ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent ..... Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurvinder Singh Sandhu, Additional Advpocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the complainant. .... S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner had sold 10 Biswas i.e. about 1495 sq. yards of land situated at Narwana Road, Jind vide sale deed dated 28.1.2002 to the complainant-Har Narayan Singh. After 8 years, the complainant-Har Narayan Singh has lodged FIR alleging that the Patwari at the time of entering mutation informed the complainant that the petitioner had only 1200 sq. yards of land. In this manner, there was a deficit of land measuring 295 sq. yards. The complainant asked for making good the deficit land or for paying its market value. On the last date of hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing either to give the land which was deficit or pay the market rate of the same. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf Crl. Misc. No.M-4482 of 2011 -2- of the complainant and submitted that the petitioner may abide by his stand and transfer 295 sq. yards of land. Today, learned counsel for the complainant submits that 295 sq. yards of land has not been transferred by the petitioner in favour of the complainant. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in fact the mutation of the land had not been sanctioned in favour of the original owner and, therefore, the land in question could not be transferred in the name of the complainant and consequently the complainant could not transfer the land in favour of the subsequent owners. The grievance of the complainant has been that the land has not been transferred by the petitioner to the complainant despite making a statement in the Court. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner has indeed not transferred 295 sq. yards of the land in favour of the complainant. A period of 8 years has lapsed. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to make the payment. However, learned counsel for the complainant submits that he does not want to accept the payment. In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the land which was undertaken for being transferred in favour of the complainant, has not been transferred, no ground for the grant of concession of pre- arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. 26.04.2011 (S.S. Saron) Jyoti 1 Judge