[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.406 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Parasnath Rammurat Rai and Anr. ..Respondents ... Ms.A.A.Mane APP for applicant Mr.S.V.Kotwal A.P.P. for Respondent ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-complainant-State and the learned advocate for the respondent-original accused no.4. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2008 passed by learned IInd Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane in Special Case No. 13 of 1999, this application has been preferred. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge discharged the respondent i.e. original accused no.4. 3. The case of the prosecution is that original accused nos.2 and 3 were Talathis. The original accused no.1 was Tahsildar and present respondent was Director of School standing on land in respect [-2-] of which entries were made in 7x12. It is the prosecution case that the Tahsildar and the present applicants in collusion with the other accused showed that there was school building and huts erected by tribal people over the land in question. 4. The original accused Nos.2 and 3 were working as Talathi. Rule 31 of Maharshtra Land Revenue Code provides for maintenance of register of person in possession other than persons deemed to be in possession according to record of rights. Sub-Section (1) empowers the village Talathi to verify who is in actual possession of the land (survey number). If the person in possession is other than the person who, according to the entry in record of rights, is entitled to cultivate the land, he has to enter the name of that person in the register of persons in possession, other than the persons who claim to have been in possession as per the record of rights. The Talathi forwards the relevant extract of entry to Tahsildar. Sub-clause (2) of Section provides that Tahsildar should visit the land for making inquiry about the possession of the persons mentioned in the register. After following certain procedure, Tahsildar has to hear [-3-] the persons in this respect and make inquiry, thereafter he decides the matter. Accordingly, Tahsildar Mr.Naik passed an order dated 6.10.1991 after inspecting the spot. 5. Complaint was filed before Collector, Thane and application was made to Revenue Minister. The then Revenue Minister passed an order dated 14.2.1995 and reverted the entry. Hence, the order of the Collector, Thane was cancelled and the land was returned to the complainant. The complainant made another application to the then Hon’ble Minister Shri. Narayan Rane as per Section 248 of Land Revenue Code. The then Minister passed an order not to remove the encroachment without the order of the Court and cancelled the mutation entries and thus, the Minister confirmed the order of the Tahsildar. The Hon’ble Minister also directed not to remove the school building from the land as the complainant had consented for the school. The complainant was Ramnarayan Khanna i.e. on behalf of Arthur Import Export Company. As per order dated 25.4.1994 Collector, Thane passed an order and the land was transferred in the name of Government in revenue record as it was not used for [-4-] industrial purpose for which it was purchased. The protection was given that the school building as well as the encroachment of adivasis should not be removed without the order of the Court. Hence, the complainant Ram Narayan Khanna filed writ petition No.320 of 1998 against the order of the then Hon’ble Revenue Minister Shri.Narayan Rane. The High Court confirmed the order of the Minister and directed not to demolish the school building. 6. In view of the above, it is seen that whatever entries were made, were done as per the order of superiors and the Honourable High Court. There is no prima facie evidence to believe that the Respondent/accused was in any way instrumental in making false entry in 7x12 extract by making the entries of the school building and the adivasi encroachers in 7x12 record. The learned Sessions Judge has considered all these aspects of the matter and thereafter he has discharged the respondent. I find that the order of the learned Judge is correct, legal and proper, hence, no case is made out for interference. Application is rejected. [-5-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]