lawcodified

Blog

  • Chellenge to high court for the illegal certification of mutation

    Disclaimer: The names used in this article (such as Akshaye Khanna, Ranveer Singh, Deepika Padukone, etc.) are for fictional or academic purposes only. They do not represent real people.”

    RIGHT TO FILE PETITION

    Akshaye Khanna is a national and citizen of India and therefore he is entitled for protection of his fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of India as well as other statutory rights available under the law and also entitled to file present petitioner under Article 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India.

    WHO ARE THE RESPONDENTS?

    Ranveer singh is the Revenue Authority of the State and Deepika Padukone is hundred percent (100%) company of which is a joint venture between the Government of India and which is involved in generation of hydroelectricity and transmission and therefore it falls within the definition of “The State” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

    MAIN LEGAL ISSUE

    Akshaye Khanna by way of this petition challenges the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector whereby Deepika Padukone has certified the mutation entry no. 6969 without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and more particularly without registering the dispute case under Section 106 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) and directly passing the impugned order  without issuing notice for hearing to the parties which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in breach of the principle of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 

    FACTS OF THE CASE

    Akshaye Khanna states and submits that the petitioner is an equity shareholder of which is a parent company i.e. Arjun Rampal herein. It is submitted that the Arjun Rampal has purchased the land at  admeasuring 77870 square meters from one Shri Tiger Shroff. I state that the said deed of conveyance was executed and registered before the Office of the Sub-Registrar.

    Akshaye Khanna states and submits that in pursuance to the said deed of conveyance the Village Form No. 6 in Revenue Survey No. 6969 and the petitioner on coming to know about the said transaction had filed its objection before the Deputy Collector, requesting him not to certify the said entry no. 6969 as the Deed of Conveyance has been executed by some impostor of  Arjun Rampal and the seller of the said property representing himself as Arjun Rampal is a fraud and impostor.

    Akshaye Khanna further submits that the original owner of the land is one who resides in Mumbai and not the person who has executed the document i.e.  Arjun Rampal who resides in Maharashtra. It is submitted that the original Pan Card of  Arjun Rampal who is the owner of the land is to the petition.

    Whereas that of  Arjun Rampal who has executed the sale deed has enclosed his Pan Card along with the said Deed of Conveyance at  however, for sake of convenience the petitioner.

    LEGAL PROCEDURE REQUIRED UNDER THE LAND REVENUE RULE

    Akshaye Khanna states and submits that in pursuance to the said objection the Deputy Collector is required to follow procedure under the Land Revenue Rules, 1972 more particularly under Rule 106(4) whereby if there is any dispute to the revenue entry being mutated the said entry is first required to be entered in the register of disputed cases and it is required to be disposed of under Rule 108 of the  The Gujarat Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”) within 90 days from the date of the dispute entered in the register of disputed cases.

    Akshaye Khanna states and submits that once the dispute is entered in the register of disputed cases is required to make an inquiry in the village in which the land is situated or where the interested parties resides and the officer making the inquiry has to record the reasons before disposing of the dispute and certifying the entry in the diary of mutation after giving appropriate hearing to the party concerned i.e. by following principles of natural justice.

    Akshaye Khanna states and submits that in the present case the petitioner had filed its objection before the Deputy Collector  and it was incumbent and mandatory for the Deputy Collector i.e.  Deepika Padukone herein to enter dispute in the register of the Disputed Cases under Rule 106 of the Rule, 1972 and it shall be disposed of under the  The Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”) of 1972. The petitioner states and submits that after registering the said entry in the register of the disputed cases the Deepika Padukone has to afford the hearing to the parties concerned after hearing the parties should pass the reasoned order either Certifying the revenue entry or cancelling the pencil entry in Village Form No. 6.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE AUTHORITIES

    Akshaye Khanna states and submits that as the objections raised by the petitioner on  against the Pencil Entry made in the Revenue Record in pursuance to the Deed of Conveyance being registered, the Deepika Padukone did not register the dispute in the Register of Disputed Cases and therefore petitioner had made representation to the Collector, requesting the collector to direct the Deepika Padukone to register the dispute in the Register of Disputed Cases and give the hearing to the petitioner before certifying the Revenue Entry.

    Akshaye Khanna states and submits that it is pertinent to note that the Ranveer singh had purchased other lands as well in which the petitioner had also filed eleven (11) objections before the Deputy Collector, and the Deputy Collector, on receiving those 11 objections had entered the dispute in register of disputed cases and after giving hearing to the petitioner and the parties concerned the disputed cases came to be adjudicated by the Deputy Collector, by reasoned order while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner.

    VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

    Akshaye Khanna states that in the present case petitioner had raised similar objections for Revenue Survey No. 6969 in which Pencil Entry came to be made of however, the  Ranveer singh though in other similar cases of the same village had registered in the Register of Disputed Cases the said objections and had adjudicated the same in the present case the Deepika Padukone without following the procedure prescribed under The  Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”) has passed the impugned order in breach of principles of natural justice i.e. without giving hearing to the petitioner and the other concerned parties. The petitioner further states that the Deepika Padukone  though is required to pass reasoned order under The Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”), has passed the order without giving any reason.

    Being aggrieved by the said action of the Deepika Padukone the petitioner is constrained to file this petition on the following amongst other grounds.

    GROUND FOR CHALLENGING THE ORDER

    Akshaye Khanna states and submits that Deepika Padukone authority on any objections disputing the entry is received by him is required to enter the dispute in the Register of Disputed Cases under Rule 106 of the Land Revenue Rules 1972 however, the Deepika Padukone herein has failed to enter the dispute in the Register of the Disputed Cases and therefore the said impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.

    Akshaye Khanna submits that it is mandatory for the Deepika Padukone to enter the dispute in the Register of the Disputed Cases and to give hearing under Rule 108 of the Land Revenue Rules 1972 however, Deepika Padukone has not given any hearing as contemplated under Rule 108 to the petitioner and the parties concerned while passing the impugned order and therefore also there is a breach of principle of natural justice and therefore the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.

    Akshaye Khanna submits that under The Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”) once the objections disputing the certifying of the revenue entry is received by the Deepika Padukone it is required to inquire with regard to the objections raised and after hearing the concerned parties a reasoned order is required to be recorded before disposing of the dispute and certifying the entry in the diary of mutation which the Deepika Padukone has failed to do and therefore also the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside for not following the procedure laid down under the  Land Revenue Rules, 1972.

    Akshaye Khanna submits that even otherwise the respondent has not followed the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order and therefore also the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.

    RELIEF SOUGHT

    Akshaye Khanna state and submits that he has not filed any other petition on the subject matter either before this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or before any other Competent Court.

    Akshaye Khanna crave leave, add, alter or amend any of the foregoing paragraphs as and when it is found necessary.

    Akshaye Khanna have no other alternative, declare an efficacious remedy, save and except by of this petition before this Hon’ble Court.

    Disclaimer: The names used in this article (such as Akshaye Khanna, Ranveer Singh, Deepika Padukone, etc.) are for fictional or academic purposes only. They do not represent real people.”

  • Bail Petition Of Breach Central pollution board Guideline

    Disclaimer: The names used in this article (such as Shah Rukh Khan, Shraddha Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, Alia Bhatt, etc.) are for fictional or academic purposes only. They do not represent real people.”

    FACTS OF THE CASE

    Shah Rukh Khan submit that prosecution case in nutshell is that the complainant namely Shraddha Kapoor is serving as Deputy Executive Engineer in Goa Canal Sub Division under under her jurisdiction one Branch Canal is passing near IDC and the said Canal is passing through, residential area of IDC and the said Canal ends at lake of Goa Nagar Palika.

    REGISTRATION OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

    The FIR in question that in the morning one Priyanka Chopra , Gate Operator of IDC Canal called her and informed that water containing chemical is coming in Canal and therefore the complainant and one Alia Bhatt went to Village to see the Canal and they saw that chemical was spread over near Canal’s gate near Farm of Jacqueline Fernandez and the water was contaminated by chemical and it can be seen that fishes in the Canal have died and therefore they have closed the gate of the Canal near Branch of Industrial Development Corporation  and also informed telephonically to Deputy Executive Engineer.

    Kareena Kapoor Khan of IDC as well as Chief Officer Sara Ali Khan to close the gate of the lake situated at IDC and the complainant had informed telephonically to Katrina Kaif, the Engineer of Nagar Palika to close the lake and also informed to Pollution Control Board (PCB) and therefore the Officer of the Pollution Control Board (PCB), came at Village and collected samples and procedure was undertaken to remove chemical from the water.

    The FIR that some unknown persons have spilled the chemical in the Canal and violated the guidelines of CPCB and has endangered the lives of the persons and caused damage to the Environment and therefore the complainant filed the FIR in question.

    ARREST AND BAIL PROCEEDINGS

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that in pursuance to the lodgement of the FIR in question, all the present applicants were arrested and thereafter the Police Inspector of applied for remand vide his application which came to be partly allowed and the remand was granted. It is submitted that after the remand period the applicants were sent to judicial custody.

    Thereafter the present applicants jointly preferred Criminal Misc. Application before Hon’ble Additional Sessions Judge, praying for Regular Bail. It is submitted that the said application came to be rejected vide impugned order by the Hon’ble Court below. The Police Inspector of Police Station submitted affidavit opposing bail application of the applicants.

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application , the applicants have jointly preferred this application for Regular Bail on the following amongst other grounds.

    ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE APPLICANT

    Shah Rukh Khan are absolutely innocent and that they have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR in question. That looking to the age of the applicants they are required to be released on regular bail.

    Shah Rukh Khan respectfully submits that they are falsely implicated in these offences and they have not committed the offences as alleged under sections 279, 324(2), 110, 286, 326(B) and 54 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act. The applicants state and submit that there are no prima facie case made out against the applicants from the FIR and therefore, the applicants are required to be released on regular bail. 

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that if the First Information Report is perused, it can be seen that the role of the present applicants do not fall under Sections 279, 324(2), 110, 286, 326(B) and 54 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act and therefore the applicants are required to be released on regular bail.

    ARGUMENTS REGARDING FIR

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that applicants are in jail and trial will take its own course and therefore, the applicants are required to be released on regular bail. and that looking to the FIR in question it reveals that names of the present applicants are not mentioned in the FIR in question and the applicants are not involved in commission of these offences directly or indirectly.

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that the applicants are implicated in this FIR and arrested only on doubt and the applicants have not committed any offence and the applicants have not thrown chemical in the Canal as stated in the FIR in question and from applicants, no muddamal regarding chemicals were collected or seized from the applicants and the applicants are not aware regarding the same.

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that the Investigating Officer has sought remand of the applicants which came to be granted and the said remand period is now over and therefore it is submitted that the presence of the applicants are not required for further investigation and therefore also the applicants are required to be released on regular bail. It is submitted that during the remand period the Investigating Officer has collected all the evidences and therefore also custody of the present applicants are not required.

    ARGUMENTS REGARDING SECTION 110 OF BNS 2023

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that from bare perusal of the FIR in question, it reveals that except Section 110, all other Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are bailable and triable by Magistrate of First Class whereas Section 110 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pertains to attempt to culpable homicide wherein the imprisonment is provided for three years or fine or both and the said offence is cognizable, non bailable and triable by Court of Sessions.

    Shah Rukh Khan submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that such alleged act has caused hurt to any person and therefore it is submitted that the second part of Section 110 is not applicable in the present case and therefore it is submitted that the maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 110 Part 1 is up to three years and therefore looking to the allegations made in the FIR in question, the applicants are required to be released on regular bail. Moreover, it is submitted that Section 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 provides for penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, Orders and direction wherein the imprisonment is provided for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to One Lakh Rupees or with both, etc.

    PENALTY UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1996

    Shah Rukh Khan submitted that Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 provides for cognizance of offences whereby it is provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by (a) the Central Government or any Authority or Officer authorized in this behalf by that Government or (b) any person who has given notice of not less than 60, days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make the complaint, to the Central Government or the Authority or Officer authorized as aforesaid. that perusal of Section 19 Environment Protection Act, 1986.

    SECTION 2(H) – COMPLAINT

    Section 2(h) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 defines the word “Complaint” as under:

    “Complaint” means any allegations made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita that some persons, whether known or unknown, has committed offence, but does not include a Police Report.
    Explanation – A report made by Police Officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the Police Officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant.

    Shah Rukh Khan that perusal of Section 2(h) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 reveals that cognizance of the alleged offences under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 cannot be taken, except on a complaint made orally or in writing to a Magistrate and therefore, the lodgement of the FIR under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is itself not permitted in law and therefore also the applicants are required to be released on regular bail.

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the applicants have played no role or any active role in the alleged commission of offences and therefore they are required to be released on regular bail.

    NO ACTIVE ROLE OF PETITIONER  

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that having no criminal history and they have been arrested by the Police only on the basis of doubt and they have not committed any offence regarding the chemical waste. It is submitted that no muddamal have been recovered from the applicants and the cause of death of fishes is not clear.

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that the serving in Company and it is alleged that the applicants had disposed of the chemical waste for three times during the period without following the guidelines of CPCB and due to some fishes of the Canal died and the act of the applicants is going to affect the health of the public at large. it is the case of the prosecution that the water of the Canal was stopped by the concerned authority and due to that the public at large were not affected by the hazardous chemical and therefore that even as per the prosecution case no harm is caused to public at large and therefore also looking to the gravity of offence alleged against the present applicants, the applicants are required to be released on regular bail.

    ASSURANCE BY COURT

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, further detention of the applicants in the custody are not required.

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that the Court below has committed grave error in observing that the applicants are involved in the crime and therefore the applicants are not entitled for bail.

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that there is no direct evidence against the present applicants regarding any role played by the present applicants in the aforesaid crime and therefore also present applicants are required to be released on regular bail.
    The applicants state and submit that the looking to the age of the applicants, the present applicants are required to be released on regular bail.

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that the applicants are residents of District and are doing services and the applicants are earning members of their respective families and they are at present in the judicial custody and therefore if the applicants are not enlarged on bail then their respective entire family will suffer and since the applicants are the bread earner for their respective family and therefore also they are entitled to be released on regular bail.

    GROUND FOR BAIL

    Shah Rukh Khan state and submit that the applicants will not tamper the evidence and therefore the applicants are required to be released on bail by this Hon’ble Court.  That the applicants have deep root at the aforesaid address as shown in the cause title of this application and therefore, they are not likely to abscond. That the applicants are not likely to tamper with the witnesses or hamper the course of justice. That the applicants are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation.

    Shah Rukh Khan will make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when they are directed to do so. That the applicants will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

    Shah Rukh Khan are prepared to abide by any terms and conditions which this Hon’ble Court may impose upon them. Shah Rukh Khan respectfully submit that looking to the allegations levelled against the applicants in FIR, these allegations are only on presumptions and assumptions and therefore the applicants are required to be released on regular bail.

    Shah Rukh Khan have not filed any other application for the subject matter of this application before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

    RELIEF SOUGHT

    Shah Rukh Khan most humbly prays that: may be pleased to admit and allow the present application. may be pleased to release the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR registered before Police Station, under Sections 279, 324(2), 110, 286, 326(B) and 54 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed in by the Hon’ble Additional Sessions Judge.

    Since the applicants are in jail, filing of the affidavit may kindly be dispensed with. And to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper.

    AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

    Disclaimer: The names used in this article (such as Shah Rukh Khan, Shraddha Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, Alia Bhatt, etc.) are for fictional or academic purposes only. They do not represent real people.”

  • Hello world!

    Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!