In a significant legal ruling by the Supreme Court of India, the case of State of Odisha vs. M/s Millan Developer and Builders Pvt. Ltd. has gained attention for its implications on land fraud and conspiracy. The court’s decision to overturn the High Court’s order and continue with the trial has raised concerns about governance and public trust in land administration. The case involves allegations of fraudulent activities in acquiring government lands, with the State pointing to a broader conspiracy involving professional individuals in the real estate sector.
Facts
- Kishore Chandra Patnaik granted Anup Kumar Dhirsamant power of attorney to manage the property
- Property rights were claimed based on a lease previously declared non-genuine
- Allegations of interpolation in the General Power of Attorney to favor the accused
- Accusations of undervalued sale of land portions post-interpolation
- Chargesheet filed against ten individuals for criminal conspiracy involving forged documents
- Allegations of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands
- High Court of Orissa quashed the order of cognizance for specified offences against the Respondents
- Insufficient evidence of conspiracy directly implicating the respondents
- Criticism of the preliminary stage of judicial scrutiny as overly thorough
- Contrary to the standards required for prima facie evaluation at the stage of taking cognizance
- High Court quashed the order taking cognizance against the respondents
Also Read: Judgment by Supreme Court of India in the Criminal Appeals of Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar
Arguments
- The appellant-State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence suggesting a broader conspiracy involving the respondents.
- The State emphasizes the respondents’ professional acumen in real estate as a reason they should have been aware of the dubious nature of the transactions.
- The State contends that the High Court did not appreciate the severity of the offenses and their implications for governance and public trust in land records administration.
- The Court agrees that the High Court’s order deserves reconsideration.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Vivek Pal and Punit Pal
Analysis
- Kishore Chandra Patnaik granted a GPA to M/s Millan Developer and Builders Pvt. Ltd.
- GPA was registered outside the proper jurisdiction
- The registration included a small, unrelated parcel of land to falsely extend the Sub-Registrar of Khandagiri’s authority
- The manipulation of the GPA to misrepresent authority was aided by Ajya Kumar Samal, a junior clerk.
- Land transactions involving accused individuals were facilitated by Prahallad Nanda who was temporarily in charge of the Sub-Registrar’s office.
- Accused individuals utilized their connections in the Real Estates Developers Association and the real estate sector to carry out the conspiracy.
- The intentional undervaluation of land, in collusion with fraudulent tampering of the GPA, indicates a scheme to misappropriate government property.
- The wife of the Managing Director of M/s Z Engineer’s Construction Pvt. Ltd. was instrumental in planning and executing these transactions.
- The considerable undervaluation raises suspicions of evading stamp duties and causing losses to the state.
- Lands were acquired in Bhubaneswar city for a fraction of the prevailing market rates, facilitating subsequent illegal activities.
- Dismissing the case at a preliminary stage could undermine the integrity of ongoing investigations related to similar frauds involving government lands.
- Extensive lands were sold at significantly lowered values following the forgery and fraudulent transactions.
- The High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings is seen as detrimental to investigating similar fraudulent schemes against public assets.
- The High Court’s assessment was deemed incomplete and a detailed trial process is necessary to unravel the facts fully.
- The alleged conspiracy, involvement of the respondents, and harm to the public exchequer need judicious examination in a trial setting.
- The High Court prematurely concluded lack of evidence for a meeting of minds between accused persons, which can only be determined through thorough examination in a trial.
Also Read: Rajasthan vs Hisar: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Imposes Costs
Decision
- Trial to proceed against the respondents in accordance with the law
- Impugned order of the High Court is set aside
- Appeal is allowed
- Trial Court directed to decide the trial expeditiously
Case Title: THE STATE OF ODISHA Vs. NIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY (2024 INSC 346)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002270-002270 / 2024
