HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE (Before P.K. Jaiswal & I.S. Shrivastava, JJ.) M.Cr. C. No.1816/2007 Ramesh Chandra Patel v/s Special Police Establishment ***** Shri B.L. Pavecha, Senior Advocate with Shri Nitin Phadke, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri L.N. Soni, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anand Soni, Advocate for the respondent – Lokayukt. M.Cr. C. No.3385/2007 Ashok Kumar Jain v/s Special Police Establishment ***** Shri T.C. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri L.N. Soni, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anand Soni, Advocate for the respondent – Lokayukt. Criminal Revision No.425/2009 Ashok Bhonde v/s Special Police Establishment ***** Shri Sandeep Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri L.N. Soni, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anand Soni, Advocate for the respondent – Lokayukt. Criminal Revision No.568/2009 Onkareshwar Tiwari v/s Special Police Establishment ***** Shri S.C. Bagdiya with Shri D.K. Chhabra , Advocate for the petitioner. Shri L.N. Soni, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anand Soni, Advocate for the respondent – Lokayukt. O R D E R (20.10.2011) Per P.K. Jaiswal, J. M.Cr.C. No.1816/06 has been filed by Ramesh Chandra Patel under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR No.28/99 dated 28.3.99, charge sheet and other proceedings pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Special Judge, Dhar in Criminal Case No.1/207. 2. M.Cr.C. No.3385/07 has been filed by Ashok Jain for quashment of criminal proceedings of Special Criminal Case No.1/07, pending before the Special Judge, Dhar. 3. Criminal Revision No.425/09 has been filed by Ashok Bhonde under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of charge sheet filed on 11.2.09 in Special Criminal Case No.1/07 and the order dated 11.2.2009, by which the trial Court has framed the charges against him on the allegation that between 19th November 1993 and 1997 he was posted as Reader of Sub Divisional Officer, Dhar and Sardarpur Tehsil and during that period he could not place the order of the Collector dated 30.6.95 on record passed in the Case Nos. 161/1988-89, 166/1988-89 and 143/1988-89. 4. Criminal Revision No.568/09 has been filed by Onkareshwar Tiwari, against the order dated 11.2.2009 passed by Special Judge (PC Act) in Special Case No.1/07 by which the applications submitted by the petitioner were rejected and trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner Onkareshwar Tiwari on the allegations that between 12.12.95 and 23.6.96 he was posted as Collector District Dhar and during that period a Colony License was issued to Ashok Jain, Attorney holder of land owners and while issuing colony license the earlier order of the predecessor Collector dated 30.6.96 was not kept in mind. 5. All these petitions are arise out of FIR Nos. 28/99 & 5/99 for the offence punishable under sections 13 (i)(d) and 13 (ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 and 120-B of IPC. At the relevant point of time Ramesh Patel was Sub Divisional Officer, Dhar and Ashok Jain was contractor in whose favour licence was granted by the Collector. Ashok Bhonde at the relevant point of time was Reader of Sub Divisional Officer, Dhar and Sardarpur and Onkareshwar Tiwari was the then Collector of District Dhar, a common question involved in all these four petitions and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 6. The respondent No.1 lodged a FIR in the year 1999 vide Crime No.28/99 under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 109 & 120-B of IPC against four government employees and one Ashok Jain of Trimurti Builder viz: (1) O.R. Tiwari, the then Collector, Dhar (2) Ramesh Patel, the then SDO, Sardarpur District Dhar (3) Shri Vikram Singh Tomar, the then Reader to Collector , District Dhar (4) Shri Ashok Bhonde, the than Reader of SDM Sardarpur (5) Ashok Jain of Trimurti Builder, Dhar. 7. The material facts of the case are that the land bearing Survey Nos.36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 45 and 56 located at village Magajpura in Tehsil and District Dhar stood recorded in the name of Hamirchand, son of Nihalchand Chaudhary. In the revenue record of 1947-48, the name of one Jasoda, widow of Rama was recorded in Column No.5 as subtenant in respect of all the aforesaid survey numbers. 8. Thakur Nihalchand Choudhary the then Jagirdar had obtained a decree of possession in respect of land in question against Bhagirath in Civil Suit No.75/1951 and started execution proceedings. Baghirath as the judgment debtor raised an objection that by operation of law he has become Pukka Bhumiswami and cannot be ejected from the land in question. The Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Dhar passed an order on 25.7.62 in Civil Suit No.75/1951 upholding the objection on the ground that he become Pakka Tenant and, therefore, he cannot be ejected from the land. The Civil Judge Class-I relying the decision of High Court in the case of Narsingh Kalu v/s Rao Nihalkaran , 1962 MPLJ Short Note No.89 passed the above order. The Civil Appeal No.26-B/62 filed by Kunwar Hamirchand Choudhary S/o Nihalchand was dismissed by the District Judge Dhar on 27.10.64, as a consequence of which the decree passed by the Civil Court stood affirmed. M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (in short 'the Ceiling Act')came into force on 15.11.61. The Naib Tehsildar, Dhar in Revenue Case No.15/A-6/62-63 (Bhagirath, son of Rama & others v/s Thakur Hamirchand and Nihalchand), passed an order of mutation under Section 190, 109-110 of MPLR Code in favour of Bhagirath, son of Rama over the land in question while deleting the name of Hamirchand on the basis of the order passed by the Civil Court on 25.7.1962. The aforesaid order of Naib Tehsildar had given affect to order of Civil Court by making revenue entries in favour of Bhagirath S/o Ram in the Khatoni for 1962-63 with effect from 18.7.63. 9. Proceedings under the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act were commenced against Nihalchand, son of Pratapchand Chaudhary which were registered as Ceiling Case No.12/ 63-64/ A-90/B-3 (subsequently renumbered as 2/75-76/ A-90/B-3 & 21/75-76/A-90/B-3). Thakur Nihalchand submitted his return in the ceiling case in Format 'K' under Section 9 of the Act. The Format 'K' relates to the land held by Thakur Nihalchand on 15.11.1963. The land ad-measuring 1789.94 acres of 47 villages belonging to Thakur Nihalchand Choudhary was affected by the Ceiling Act. He submitted his return on 14.12.64 in Format 'K' (page No.1423 of petition). As per return filed by Nihalchand in Format 'K' it is alleged in the petition that the land in question was notshown in that Format. On 2.9.74 Patwari submitted the information in Format '5' regarding the lands held by Thakur Nihalchand and and his wife in village Magajpura. It is alleged that the land in question does not find place in this format also. In Format '5' the land held by Thakur Nihalchand and his wife on the appointed dates namely 15.11.61, 15.11.63, 1.1.71, 7.3.74 has been shown. On 28.5.76 draft statement was published (Order sheet is at page No.1235). In that statement the details of land of Magajpura in the name of Indubai (wife of Nihalchand) were published. It is alleged that the land in question does not find place in that statement. Thereafter, on 15.6.76 one unsigned objection was filed (copy of objection is at page No.248-249) by Suresh, Prahlad, Ramesh, Jagdish and Shankar, sons of Bhagirath stating therein that if the land in question was included in the ceiling case then the same be released from the ceiling proceedings. 10. The Competent Authority vide order dated 30.6.76 allowed the objection submitted by the sons of Bhagirath Prasad thereby ordering the release of land in question from ceiling. Thereafter, on 8.2.89 final statement was published under Section 11 of the Ceiling Act. The land in question was not entered in any column of the final statement. 11. Smt. Abha, widow of Hamirchand and another challenged the order of competent authority by filing an appeal before the Collector District Dhar vide Case No.160/88-89/Ceiling/Appeal. The Collector held that that the SDO (Competent Authority) had the jurisdiction to decide the ceiling case and dismissed the appeal on 26.12.89. 12. The persons whose land were declared surplus in the ceiling case have challenged the order of the Competent Authority by filing three appeals before the Collector, District Dhar vide Appeals No. 161/1988-89/Appeal (Amarsingh and another of village Takravada v/s State of M.P.), 166/1988-89/Appeal (Dayaram of Manasa v/s State of M.P.) and 143/1988-89/Appeal (Gauribai of village Tarod v/s State of M.P.). All the three appeals were decided on 30.6.1995 by the Collector holding that the SDO had no jurisdiction is to decide the ceiling case as the lands in the ceiling case were situated in two Tahsils i.e. Dhar and Sardarpur and on this finding the Collector set aside the order dated 30.6.1976 and 8.2.1989 and remanded the matter to the SDO Dhar with a direction to issue notice to the holders and objectors and after hearing to transmit the case to the Collector for passing final orders. 13. The aforesaid order passed by the Collector was received at the Office of SDO, Dhar by Shri Ashok Bhonde, the then Reader to SDO. At that relevant point of time, Shri Virendra Singh Rawat was the SDO, Dhar-Sardarpur. Ramesh Chandra Patel, petitioner in M.Cr.C. No.1816/07 was posted as SDO, Dhar- Sardapur on 17.7.95. On 19.7.95 he joined as SDO, Dhar- Sardarpur. It is alleged that the aforesaid order dated 30.6.95 passed by the Collector was never produced before the petitioner by the Reader, as admitted by the reader in his statement dated 28.9.2004 given before the SDO. 14. On 12.12.95 three applications for diversion were filed by Jagdish, Ramesh and Prahlad, son of Bhagirath through their Power of Attorney holder Ashok, son of Babulal Jain before the SDO (Ramesh Chandra Patel) under section 172 of the MPLR Code, 1959, in respect of the lands in question. These applications were registered as Revenue Case Nos. 10/95-96/A-2 (Jagdish v/s State of M.P.), 11/95-96/A-2 (Ramesh v/s State of M.P.) and 12/95-96/A-2 (Prahlad v/s State of M.P.). On 30.12.1995 the Collector, Dhar issued a letter to SDO, Dhar-Sardarpur to hold an inquiry and to report for grant of colony license in respect of the land in question. On 23.1.1996 SDO sent a report to the Collector in the matter of grant of colony license in respect of the land in question mentioning that the land in question was not affected by ceiling. On 1.3.96, the aforesaid three diversions cases were decided by SDO and the lands for diversion in question were permitted to be diverted for residential use. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of order dated 1.3.96 reads as under :- “2. izdj.k iathc+) fd;k tkdj foKfIr dk izdk'ku fd;k x;k A fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa dksbZ vkifRr izkIr ugha gqbZ] blls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds O;iorZu esa fdlh dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS A vkosnd }kjk vkosnu i= ds lkFk izLrqr [kljk ,ao [kkrk udy ds vuqlkj vkosfnr Hkwfe 02-10-59 ls vkt rd fdlh vkfnoklh ds uke ij ;k dCts esa ugha jgh gS A ;g Hkwfe ftYn cankscLr ,ao vf/kdkjh vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj tehnkj.k tehnkjksa ds uke ij ugha jgh gS A 3- izdj.k esa flfyax vf/kfu;e ds varxZr iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds 'kkfey gksus ds laca/k es tkap dh tkap ds nkSjku ;g ik;k x;k fd iz'uk/khu Hkwfe flfyax ,DV ds varxZr vfr'ks"k ?kksf"kr ugha gqbZ gS rFkk orZeku esa flfyax vf/kfu;e ds varxZr iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds laca/k esa dksbZ izdj.k fopkjkk/khu ugha gSA 4- bl izdj.k ds izkjaHk gksus ds ckn e-iz- fofufnZ"V Hkz"V vkpj.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds dkyksuh yk;lsal fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa izdj.k esa tkap ds nkSjku Jh jes'kpanz jkBkSM+ o Jh ujsUnz pkS/kjh ds }kjk dysDVj egksn; ,oa vk;qDr egksn; dks izsf"kr f'kdk;rksa ds laca/k ds nks eq[; fcUnq FksA ,d rks ;g fd iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk ekeyk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS rFkk nwljk ;g fd fcuk dkyksuh yk;lsal o fcuk Mk;o'kZu vuqefr ds vkosnu }kjk iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ij fuekZ.k fd;k tk jgk gS] bl laca/k esa Jh jes'kpUnz jkBkSM+ ,oa ujsUnz pkS/kjh dks dk;kZy;hu i= dz- 622 fnukad 20@02@96 }kjk lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k x;k fd ;s mudh f'kdk;rksa ds laca/k esa i{k j[kus ds fy;s fnukad 28@02@96 dks U;k;ky;hu le; esa mifLFkr ugha gq,] blds i'pkr~ iqu% volj fn;s tkus ds rkjrE; esa dk;kZy;hu i= dza- 733 fn- 29@02@96 ds }kjk iqu% f'kdk;rdrkZ dks i{k j[kus ds fy;s fn- 02@03@96 dks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr jgus ds fy;s funZs'k fn;s x;s] ml lwpuk i= ds rkjrE; esa Jh jes'kpanz jkBksM+ fn- 29@02@96 dks mifLFkr gq, rFkk mUgksus vius dFku vafdr djk;sA dFku ds varxZr Jh jkBkSM+ }kjk ;g crk;k fd muds }kjk tks f'kdk;r dh xbZ Fkh og vKkr tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ Fkh] ijUrq ekSds ij tkdj ns[kus ij mUgsa ;g irk yxk fd ftl Hkwfe ds laca/k esa muds }kjk f'kdk;r dh xbZ gS og Hkwfe iz'uk/khu Hkwfe;ksa ls fHkUu gS] blfy, vc iz'uk/khu Hkwfe;ksa ds ekeys esamudh dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA Jh jkBksM+ ds f'kdk;rh vkosnu ds lkFk layXu eku- mPp U;k;ky; esa izLrqr f}rh; vihy dz0 233@76 es ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 07@12@95 esa vihykaV~l ,oa fjLikaMsaV ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdksa } kjk ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k fd nksuksa i{kdkj fookn dks lqy>kus ds fy;s le>kSrk dj jgs gSa] blfy, U;k;fgr esa izdj.k dh lquokbZ ekpZ 1996 rd LFkfxr dh tkrh gS] bl laca/k esa vkosnd dks dk;kZy;hu i= dza0 664 fn- 20@02@96 ds }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k fd os eku- mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fn- 07@12@96 ds laca/k esa oLrqfLFkfr Li"V djsa vkosnd }kjk bl lwpuk i= ds rkjrE; esa eku0 mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fn- 07@12@95 ds rkjrE; esa eku- mPp U;k;ky; esa f}rh; vihy dz0 233@76 ds vihykaV~l o fjLikaMsaV~l dks le{k eas mifLFkr fd;k x;kA vihykaV dza0 1 Jh dapuflag firk HkkxhjFk ds vke eq[R;kj Jh psuflag Bkdqj vihykaV dz0 2 Jh psuflag] vihykaV dzekad&3 'ksjflag firk HkkxhjFk rFkk fjLik- dz03 izgykn firk HkkxhjFk] fjLik dz0 4 jes'k] fjLik- dz0 5 txnh'k fjLik- dz0 6 'kadj] fjLik- dz0 7 lqHknzk firk HkkxhjFk rFkk fjLik- dz0 8 ds eq[R;kj vke psuflag ds }kjk U;k;ky; ds le{k dFku fd;s x;sA dFku esa leLr i{kdkjksa ds } kjk ;g crk;k x;k fd iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds laca/k esa ikfjokfjd fookn Fkk rFkk caVokjs ds iz'u dks ysdj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa f}rh; vihy is'k dh Fkh] ijUrq vihykaV ,oa fjLik- ds e/; vkilh jkthukek gks x;k gS] ftls 'kiFk vk;qDr ds }kjk fnukad 02@12@95 dks izekf.kr fd;k gSA mDr jkthukek vuqlkj iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds laca/k esa vc dksbZ fookn ugha gS rFkk vihykaV~l ,oa fjLik0 nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds }kjk iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds laca/k esa dkyksuh yk;lsal ,oa Mk;olZu rFkk vU; leLr dkuwuh dk;Zokfg;ksa ds fy, Jh v'kksd dqekj firk Jh ckcwyky tSu fu0 /kkj dks leLr vf/kdkj fn;s x;s gSa A” 15. The then SDO, contrary to the order passed by the Collector, on 30.6.95 passed the order of diversion. On 6.3.96 SDO sent another report to the Collector in the matter of grant of colony license in respect of the land in question on account of certain queries having been raised by the Collector. Para 6 of the report dated 6.3.96 is relevant, which reads as under :- “izdj.k esa layXu nksuksa vkifRr;ksa ds vkifRrdrkZ %d% jes'kpanz jkBkSj %2% Jh ujsUnz pkS/kjh gSa A nksuksa vkifRrdrkZvksa dks mudh vkifRr;ksa ij lquokbZ fd;s tkus ds fy;s lwpuki= dzekad 622@ fnukad 20-2-96 }kjk vkgwr fd;k x;k ftldh rkfeyh izdj.k esa layXyu gS A lwpuk mijkar nksuksa vkifRrdrkZ fu;r fnukad 28-2-96 dks vuqifRFkr jgs A rnqijkar U;k;fgr esas iqu% lwpuki= dzekad 733@29-2-96 }kjk nksuksa vkifRrdrkZvksa dks lquokbZ ,ao i{k j[kus ds fy;s vkgwr fd;k x;k fd os fnukad 2-3-96 dks mifLFkr gksdj mudk i{k j[ks A i= ds rkjrE; esa izFke vkifRrdrkZ Jh jes'kpzanz jkBkSj fnukad 29-2-96 dks mifLFkr gqos A Jh jkBkSj dh vkifRr ds laca/k esa muds dFku vafdr fd;s x;s Jh jkBkSj us dFku esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd mlds }kjk tks f'kdk;r dh xbZ Fkh og mUgsa Kkr tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij Fkh] ijUrq ekSds ij mUgsa irk yxk fd ftl Hkwfe ds lac/k esa f'kdk;r dh xbZ gS og bl izdj.k esa fopkjk/khu Hkwfe;ksa ls fHkUu gS] blfy;s izdj.k esa fopkjk/khu Hkwfe;ksa ds laca/k esa mUgsa dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha gS A Jh jkBkSj ds f'kdk;rh vkosnu esa iz'uk/khu Hkwfe;ksa dk izdj.k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gksus dk mYys[k gS ftlesa lquokbZ ekpZ 1996 ds vk[kjh lIrkg easa fu;r gS A ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bankSj esa izLrqr f}rh; vihy dzekad 233@1976 dh vknsf'kdk fnukad 7-12-95 esa ;g vknsf'kr fd;k x;k gS fd vihykaV~l ,ao fjLikaMsaV~ ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd nksuksa rjQ ds i{kdkj fookn dks vkilh esa le>kSrs ds }kjk gy dj jgs gSa A blfy;s vkilh le>kSrs dks izkRlkfgr djus ds ifjizs{; esa lquokbZ LFkfxr djrs gq, ekpZ ds vafre lIrkg esa izdj.k lquokbZ ds fy;s fu;r fd;k x;k gS A ekeys dh fo"k; oLrq Li"V djus ds fy, Jh v'kksd dqekj tSu dks lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k x;k A lwpuk i= ds tokc esa Jh v'kksd dqekj tSu ds }kjk mifLFkr gksdj ;g tokc izLrqr fd;k fd izdj.k ds nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds e/; fnukad 2-12-95 dks vkilh le>kSrk gks pqdk gS ftls 'kiFk vk;qDr ds le{k izekf.kr djk;k gS bl bdjkj ukes ds }kjk Jh v'kksd dqekj tSu dks Mk;olZu] dkyksuh yk;lsal rFkk vU; dkuwuh dk;Zokfg;ksa ds fy;s vf/kd`r fd;k x;k gS A bl rF; ds leFkZu easa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds izdj.k esa cus leLr vihykaV ds vke eq[R;kj psuflag firk HkkxhjFk ,ao ,d vihykaV 'ksjflag us Lao; mifLFkr gksdj dFku esa ;g crk;k fd iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds laca/k esa ikfjokfjd caVokjs ds ekeys esa vkilh le>kSrk gks pqdk gS rFkk izdj.k ds leLr vihykaV ,ao fjLikaMsaV~l ds }kjk Jh v'kksd dqekj tSu dks iz'uk/khu Hkwfe;ksa ds dkyksuh yk;lsal Mk;olZu ,ao vU; dkuwuh dk;Zokfg;ksa ds fy;s vf/kd`r fd;k x;k gS A vc dksbZ fookn ugha gS A vU; fjLikaMsaV~l ds }kjk Hkh dFkuksa ds }kjk bl rF; dh iqf"V dh xbZ gS A nwljs vkifRrdrkZ Jh ujsUnz pkS/kjh dks i{k j[kus ds fy;s lquokbZ gsrq lwpuk i= }kjk nks ckj lwfpr fd;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh Jh pkS/kjh mifLFkr ugha gqos A Jh pkS/kjh ds }kjk tks f'kdk;r dh xbZ gS fd ml f'kdk;r i= esa iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ij] ftlesa ikuh Hkjk jgrk Fkk ,ao d`f"k dh tkrh Fkh] voS/k :i ls dkyksuh dkVh tk jgh gS] 5 o"kZ Hkwfe dks catj j[kus ij gh iz'kklu vuqefr nsrk gS] ,slk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS A Jh pkS/kjh ds vkosnu ls f'kdk;r dk Lo:i gh Li"V ugha gksrk gS fd og D;k dguk pkgrs gSa ? tgka rd voS/k dkyksuh fuekZ.k dk iz'u gS] vkosnd ds }kjk dkyksuh yk;lsal izkIr djus ,ao O;iorZu dh vuqefr izkIr djus dh fof/kor~ dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gS A” 16. Sons of Bhagirath challenged the order dated 30.6.95 passed by the Collector in three appeals by filing a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore vide case No.697/95-96 Revision. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 21.6.96 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 30.6.95. The order of the Additional Commissioner dated 21.6.96 was challenged by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior. The Board of Revenue on 3.5.1997 decided the revision case Nos. 30-1/1996 (Amarsingh and another v/s State of M.P. & others) and 32-1/1996 (Gauribai v/s State of M.P. and others), whereby the order dated 30.6.76 passed by SDO, order dated 30.6.95, passed by the Collector and the order dated 21.6.96 passed by the Additional Commissioner in the ceiling case were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Dhar, to re-decide the ceiling case having regard to the position as on the appointed date i.e. 7.3.74. 17. It has been alleged in the FIR that the land of 10.879 hectare of village Magajpura, Tehsil Dhar were recorded in the name of Jagirdar Shri Nihalchand Chaudhary in 1957-1958 and thereafter the land was mutated in the name of Hamirchand Chaudhary. Due to passing of the order dated 30.6.95 by the Collector the disputed lands were affected by the Ceiling Act. It was further alleged that despite having knowledge of the aforesaid order Ramesh Chandra Patel, SDO, Dhar-Sardarpur in his enquiry report dated 23.1.96 stated that the land in question was not affected by Ceiling Act and passed diversion orders. It was further alleged that on 6.3.1996 Ramesh Chandra Patel, SDO, Dhar-Sardarpur referred his report that there was no inconvenience or public nuisance in the development of a colony on the land in question. 18. It has been alleged that in his order dated 1.3.1996 he has wrongly stated that the land in question is not affected by the Ceiling Act and there was no ceiling case pending in the Court. It was further alleged that the colonizer Ashok Jain sold plots to general public and earned profits. Thus, these officers illegally benefited the colonizer and caused loss to the Government exchequer and misused their office and committed offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC. 19. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the land in question was not under ceiling on 1.3.96 and 25.3.96. The Appeal Nos. 161, 166 and 143/88-89 pertained to three parties whose lands were situated in Tehsil Badnawar and that their lands were different from the land in question. It has also been stated that the order dated 30.6.1995, passed by Collector, Dhar Shri K.P. Singh was not applicable in respect of the land in question and until a land is declared to be surplus under the provisions of the Ceiling Act, the same cannot be said to be affected by ceiling. The land in question was never declared surplus. The diversion orders dated 1.3.1996 and 25.3.1996 were issued under the prevalent rules. 20. He further stated that now the order dated 30.6.1995 was set aside by the Additional Commissioner and all the orders of SDO, Collector and the Additional Commissioner in the ceiling case were set aside by the Board of Revenue and the matter was remanded to the Collector for re-deciding the case. He also drew my attention to letter No. 6884/BHOO.A.Ceiling/2001 dated 10.10.2001, the report of Revenue Inspector in which it is stated that the lands in question were never declared surplus and its possession was not taken over in favour of the State Government. 21. It is also submitted that after the remand from the Board of Revenue a new ceiling case has been registered vide Case No.1/96-97/A-90/B-6. In that case the land of village Magajpura was not included and, hence, no notices have been issued to Jagdish, Ramesh, Prahlad, son of Bhagirath and their Attorney Ashok Jain, Hamirchand and Nihalchand. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accusation against the petitioners, in substance, is that in passing the order on 1.3.96 and allowing the diversion application under Section 172 of M.P.L.R. Code and in submitting a report to the Collector on 23.1.1996 and 6.3.1996 stating therein that the land involved therein was not involved in any ceiling case, he acted in conspiracy with the other accused persons and with a corrupt motive caused loss to the public exchequer by putting the land in question out of the net of the Ceiling Act. 23. He further submitted that the aforesaid accusation is absolutely groundless inasmuch as the land in question could not possibly be included as the land of the holder Nihalchand Chaudhary, who submitted his return on 14.12.1964 under the provisions of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. 24. It is submitted that as per order of the Civil Court adjudicated on 25.7.1962 that Bhagirath became Bhumiswami in respect of the land in question with effect from 2.10.1959, the land in question could not possibly be included by the holder as his land either on 15.11.1963, which was the appointed date originally fixed under the Ceiling Act or on 7.3.1974,