Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated
10.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
Criminal Original Petition No.9763 of 2018.
The aforesaid Criminal Original Petition was directed
against the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Principal
District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.C. No.41 of 2015.
The Revision in turn had arisen out of the rejection of
application preferred by the present appellants seeking
discharge in connection with crime registered pursuant to C.C.
NEETU KHAJURIA of 2011 (renumbered as CC No.1524 of 2019) on the fileDate: No.2842022.09.10
of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.III, Coimbatore.
It was submitted in said criminal case that the present
appellants had executed two separate sale-deeds conveying
their interest in the land in question in favour of the
complainant; that though the documents were registered, it was
not brought to the notice of the complainant that there was a
reservation in respect of said land and it was subject matter
of proceedings under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971.
The contention advanced on behalf of the appellants, on
the other hand, was that the appellants were not aware of such
proceedings and therefore there was such averment in the
document of title. In any case, they had never claimed any
interest in the land after the conveyance and that the
complainant was entitled to enjoy the lands in his capacity as
a title holder.
The application for discharge was however rejected by the
Trial Court, which order was confirmed in revisional
jurisdiction by the Court of Principal District & Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore in Crl. Revision Case No.41 of 2015, which
in turn was subject matter of challenge before the High Court.
The High Court, however, rejected the challenge vide its
judgment and order which is presently under challenge.
In this appeal, we have heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan,
learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. R. Basant,
learned Senior Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Viswanathan has brought to our notice the fact that
the appellants had approached the High Court of Judicature at
Madras by filing Writ Petition No.417 of 2022 submitting inter
alia that in view of the inaction on the part of the
authorities, the land in question stood released from
reservation/designation and that such release ought to be in
favour of the complainant. It is submitted that accepting the
submissions so made, the High Court vide its judgment and
order dated 12.01.2022 observed as under:
“8. In that view of the matter this Court is
inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the
following order:
* That the land in question owned by the
petitioners in S. Nos.26/2B and 26/3 of
Tudiyalur Village which was part of the land
proposed for the inner ring road in the
Coimbatore Master Plan under G.O. Ms. No.661,
Housing and Urban Development Department dated
12.10.1994 is declared to be land released under
Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act.
* As a sequel, the respondents 1 and 2 as well as
the third respondent shall take necessary steps
to release the land to and in favour of the
petitioners within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
* It is made clear that once the land in question
is released in favour of the petitioners, since
the same has already been transferred in the
name of the fourth respondent, subsequently the
fourth respondent shall establish and execute
his right over the property as the lawful
owner.”
As has been observed by the High Court, the land would be
released in favour of the 4th respondent in the proceedings
before the High Court, that is to say, the complainant.
Mr. Viswanathan submits that the appellants stand by the
petition and the order passed by the High Court as stated
above. It is further submitted that in case the original
complainant so desires, the appellants are willing to return
the amount of consideration.
Considering the fact that the appellants never claimed
any interest in the land and the fact that his bona fides are
clear when he sought release in favour of 4th respondent i.e.
the complainant, in our view, the application seeking
discharge as filed by the present appellants deserves
acceptance.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and discharge the appellants
of the charges levelled against them in said C.C. No.284 of 2011
(renumbered as CC No.1524 of 2019) initiated by the complainant.
Needless to say, that consistent with the stand taken by
the appellants, it is declared that they have nothing to do
with the land in question and that the land now stands
released in favour of the complainant herein in terms of the
directions issued by the High Court in its order dated
12.01.2022.
With these observations, the appeal is allowed.