Land Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Ruling on Accused No. 4 vs. State of India

A significant legal decision by the Supreme Court of India regarding a land dispute case involving Accused No. 4 and the State of India has been made. This ruling addresses the allegations of fabricated ownership documents and lease deeds in the context of civil and criminal proceedings. The judgement sheds light on the quashing of criminal proceedings against Accused No. 4, emphasizing the principles established in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. Stay tuned to understand the complexities of this case and the implications of the court’s decision.


  • The property in question was inherited by the complainant and her siblings upon their father’s death.
  • A development agreement was entered into by the father with Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. but was later cancelled.
  • Accused No. 1 created a forged document claiming ownership of the property based on an alleged oral will.
  • A registered lease was created by Accused No. 1 to permit sub-leasing to HPCL.
  • Issues of trespassing and complaints against Accused No. 3 were also mentioned.
  • The High Court allowed some criminal petitions but dismissed others.

Also Read: Review Petition filed by Landowners against State of Haryana


  • Accused No 4 argues that their case is indistinguishable from accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, whose cases were quashed by the High Court.
  • Accused No 4 claims that the logic applied in quashing the other cases should also be applied to theirs.
  • Continuation of criminal proceedings against Accused No 4 is viewed as an abuse of the legal process.
  • Accused No 4 obtained the land in question on lease from Accused No 1 after a successful competition.
  • Accused No 4’s involvement in the alleged fabrication to show the property belonging to Accused No 1 is refuted.
  • Accused No 4’s role, as per the complaint, was limited to the execution of a lease deed by Accused No 1, falsely showing ownership.
  • Civil proceedings involving the property are ongoing, but Accused No 4 is not involved.
  • Accused No 4 argues that there is no evidence to suggest their wrongdoing in fabricating ownership documents.
  • Accused Nos. 5, 6, and 9, who are officers of a public undertaking HPCL, were unnecessarily implicated in the criminal litigation.
  • The High Court found no material against accused Nos. 5, 6, and 9 and quashed the criminal proceedings against them.
  • Citing the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., principles were laid down for the High Court to consider while quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
  • The private complainant’s counsel argued that the High Court rightly dismissed the petition of accused No. 4 but erred in allowing the petitions of accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9; thus, the quashing of criminal proceedings against them should be set aside.
  • Accused No. 4 allegedly executed a lease deed to prevent the complainant from benefiting, using fabricated documents from accused No. 1.

Also Read: State vs. Selvamani: Upholding Fair Trial Conduct


  • The observations of the Court in Bhajan Lal are relevant
  • The Court highlighted the significance of the observations
  • These observations will play a crucial role in the current context
  • Various litigations have been filed regarding the installation of a petrol pump and the grant of an N.O.C.
  • The complaint filed by Smt. Nasib Kaur reveals a disputed property claim based on inheritance between her and her siblings.
  • The complainant disputes the area of the property and its devolution among the siblings.
  • Issues raised in the complaint reflect a civil dispute over inheritance.
  • Genuineness of will and deed of confirmation should be decided in a civil proceeding, not a criminal one.
  • Multiple civil proceedings are already instituted by various parties including the complainant.
  • Allegations regarding a fraudulent will and deed need to be considered in the said civil suits.
  • High Court may quash proceedings if the allegations do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused.
  • The learned Judge should have quashed the proceedings against accused No 4 based on lack of evidence and relevance to the allegations
  • The Judge should have applied the same parameters to accused No 4 as to other accused whose applications were allowed
  • Continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No 4 would be an abuse of process of law
  • The appeals filed by the original complainant have no merit as there is no material to proceed against accused No 4
  • Accused No 4’s case falls under categories (1) and (3) as per the precedent set in the case of Bhajan Lal

Also Read: Land Dispute Legal Battle: Vijay Laxman Bhawe vs. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd.


  • Criminal appeals filed by the original complainant are dismissed.
  • Criminal appeal filed by accused No 4 is allowed.
  • Criminal proceedings against accused No 4 in Crime No 311/2010 are quashed and set aside.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001586-001586 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *