IN CRL.A. 1793 OF 2023- SC- Supreme Court cancels pre-arrest bail of man accused of usurping property of NRI couple in collusion with officials at Sub-Registrar’s office using fraudulent documents, directs Police to form SIT to investigate role of all accused
Justice Surya Kant and Justice C.T. Ravikumar [07-07-2023]

Read More: Pratibha Manchanda v. State Of Haryana

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 10, 2023: The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting anticipatory bail to a man accused of fraudulently taking possession of a piece of land belonging to an elderly NRI couple in Gurugram by faking documents such as GPA and sale deed, and directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, to form an SIT to investigate the role of the accused in collusion with others including officials at the Sub-Registrar office through custodial interrogation.  

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice C.T. Ravikumar also directed authorities to verify the genuineness of the 1996 General Power of Attorney (GPA) registered in New Delhi which was alleged to be forged by the appellants.

The Bench whoever clarified that “In case the vendees, the officers/officials of the Registering Authority have secured anticipatory bail from Sessions Court/High Court, the SIT shall be at liberty to seek suitable modifications to such orders so that no impediment is caused in carrying out a fair and free investigation.”

The appellants who claimed that they had been in possession of the subject land for over 30 years had neither sold it to anyone nor had they ever executed any GPA in favour of a third party. The area had, in their version of events, always been unequivocally under their possession and had never been ceded in any form or fashion to people outside the family.  However, in 2022 they discovered that a person named Bhim Singh had applied for mutation of the land based on a forged sale deed dated 24.02.2022 executed by respondent 2.  And FIR was thus registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Bench had noted that the original 1996 GPA was still missing and respondent 2 had applied for its copy only in 2022 after 26 years. The Court also found the sale consideration of Rs. 6.6 crores to be significantly lower than the market value of around Rs. 50 crores.  Moreover, the appellants claimed to not receive even a minuscule amount even if the 2022 Sale Deed was hypothetically considered to be valid.

The appellants alleged that respondent 2 had forged the GPA dated 1996 and used it to execute the fraudulent sale deed in 2022 which also lacked details like PAN number and TDS deduction which was a mandatory requirement, indicating it was fraudulent. 

The Bench stated that the alleged offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores of rupees were grave in nature. Hence, while it was extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it was equally incumbent to analyse the seriousness of the offence and determine if there was a need for custodial interrogation.

The Court stated that the relief of Anticipatory Bail was aimed at safeguarding individual rights. “While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.”

The Court stated that respondent 2 did not even inform he Revenue/local authorities that he had purportedly ‘purchased’ the Subject Land through a GPA. The ownership of the land always remained in the name of the appellants in the revenue record and no application for change of mutation, etc. was moved by him. After the execution of the alleged 1996 GPA, a portion of the Subject Land was acquired by the Government and compensation in this regard was paid to the Appellants. “Respondent No. 2 neither objected to the payment of such compensation nor asserted his title over the land, which he normally would have done had he possessed any rights over it. It would be incongrous to accept transfer of ownership rights in an immovable property merely on execution of a power of attorney”

The Bench further stated that “We fail to understand or comprehend as to how a bona fide purchaser could pay crores of rupees as sale consideration to a person who neither possesses documents showing ownership and title nor has original GPA of the true owner(s) of the property being sold. The fact that the sale deed was allegedly executed without mentioning the PAN Number or without deducting TDS, underlines the dubious nature of this transaction. We are equally intrigued at the behaviour of the Registering Authorities and their acceptance of the conveyance deed in the absence of these formalities being completed. The SubRegistrar and his officials were obligated to verify the ownership rights before registration of the sale deed. As per the Appellants’ claim, the prior original sale deeds of the land are still in their possession. The fact that the vendee agreed to pay such massive sums of money to Respondent No. 2 without obtaining the original records as of now casts a shadow over the legitimacy of the transaction.”

The Bench sated that there was overwhelming and clear cut prima facie evidence to indicate that the version of events provided by Respondent 2, the buyers of the property, and the Sub Registrar, should be viewed with scepticism. “These parties, prima facie, appear to be acting in concert with each other and might be hands in glove, with the ulterior motive of duping the absentee landowners. This angle requires thorough consideration by the investigating authorities. The Appellants have seemingly fallen prey to a well orchestrated conspiracy hatched to rob them of their highly valuable property. In such cases where the victims of a crime, on account of their old age and geographical distance, are unable to secure justice on their own, it falls upon Courts and the State to carry out their solemn duty to ward off injustice and restore the faith of one and all in the rule of law.”

The Supreme Court observed that all the material facts which go to the root of the matter were unfortunately not brought to the notice of the High Court. “Had there been proper assistance, the High Court also would have given a free hand to the investigating agency to investigate the role of Respondent No. 2, the vendees, the Sub Registrar and other officials of the Registering Authority, so as to uncover the collusion, connivance and conspiracy, if any, engineered to commit fraud at the expense of the Appellants.”

The Bench expressed its worry over the land scams in India that have been a persistent issue, involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition, ownership, and transactions. “Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership or an encumbrance free status. Organised criminal networks often plan and execute these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals and communities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force them to vacate their properties. These land scams not only result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder socioeconomic progress.”

The Court observed that the case indicated possible collusion between respondent 2, buyers, and registration officials to defraud the elderly appellants. “Whether or not the alleged offences were committed by Respondent No. 2 and his co-accused in active collusion with each other can be effectively determined by a free, fair, unhampered and dispassionate investigation…Joining the investigation with a protective umbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective in such like case.”

The Bench expressed its scepticism and suspicion about the verification process of the 1996 GPA carried out by the SubRegistrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, stated that the conduct of the officials of SubRegistrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi was also required to be examined to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.