ADIL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1647 of 2025

Adil and another. …….Petitioner.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others. ….…Respondents.

Present:
Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the complainant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

with

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 545 of 2026

Nitin Kumar Tripathi. …….Petitioner.

Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. ….…Respondents.

Present:
Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the complainant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

with
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 546 of 2026

Raj Kishore Tripathi. …….Petitioner.

Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. ….…Respondents.

Present:
Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the complainant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State

with

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 554 of 2026

Madhuri Tripathi. …….Petitioner.

Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. ….…Respondents.

2

Present:
Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the complainant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

with

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 680 of 2026

Rakesh Mohan. …….Petitioner.

Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. ….…Respondents.

Present:
Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

with

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 732 of 2026

Sourav Pokhrel. …….Petitioner.

Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. ….…Respondents.

Present:
Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. These batch of six petitions have been filed for quashing of
First Information Report dated 04.12.2025 bearing FIR No. 0667 of
2025, P.S. Patel Nagar, District Dehradun, wherein, nine persons
namely Mohan Lal, Harkesh Kumar, Aadil, Imtiyaz, Rakesh,
Rajkishore Tripathi, Maduri Tripathi, Nitin Kumar Tripathi and
Saurabh Pokhrel have been implicated by the informant Sanjay
Kumar Aggarwal for the offences punishable under sections
318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2) r/w section 61(2) of BNS, 2023. Now
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties since all these

3
petitions are arising out of the same FIR and, therefore, being
decided with the common order.
2. At this juncture, it is essential to outline the factual matrix as
described in the FIR to clearly understand the context of these
batch of petitions. The impugned FIR has been lodged by one
Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal with the allegations that the informant
purchased a piece of land measuring 0.4620 hectares comprising
in Khasra No. 872 situated at Mauja Parval, Rehabilitation Area
THDC Colony (East Hope Town), Tehsil Vikasnagar, District
Dehradun, through a registered sale deed dated 29.10.2005
executed by Shri Mohan Lal, Shri Harkesh Kumar and Smt.
Basanti, which is duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar,
Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. It is further alleged in the FIR that
the land bearing Khasra No. 872 min 0.5280 hectare Khasra No.
886 measuring 0.000 hectare of Khasra No. 919 measuring 0.00600
hectare total area 0.7880 hectare was allotted to Mohan Lal,
Harkesh Kumar and Smt. Basanti since all they all were the
displaced persons from Tehri Town.
3. It is further stated in the FIR that from Khasra No. 872
0.0728 hectare was sold out to one Smt. Madhri Bisht and 0.4620
hectare from the same Khasra No. i.e. 872 was sold out to the
informant and, as such, no land left out in Khasra No. 872 in the
name of all these allotees. It is alleged in the FIR that despite this
that no land is left out Mohan Lal and Harkesh Kumar conspired
with the other persons, who are named in the FIR and executed
several forged and fabricated sale deeds to different persons, who
are also named in the FIR. It is further alleged in the FIR that in
total six sale deeds were executed in a forged manner out of
which three sale deeds were executed in single day i.e. on

4
10.09.2025 and remaining three sale deeds were executed on
29.10.2005, 25.06.2008 and 03.11.2025.
4. The main contention of the petitioners in these batch of
petitions are that all these sale deeds are registered and at that
time when the sale deed was executed in the year 2005 in favour
of the informant Mohan Kumar, Harkesh Kuamr and Late Basanti
Devi were not having bhumidhari rights, therefore, the sale deed
executed in the year of 2005 is null and void. The another ground
is that the persons in favour of whom the sale deed were executed
are the bonafide purchaser, therefore, if the informant has any
grievance he can avail a civil remdy to challenge those sale deeds.
5. In reference to WPCRL No. 1647 of 2025, learned counsel for

the petitioner Mr. Rajat Mittal submits that the petitioners of this
petition have nothing to do with these sale deeds and have been
falsely implicated. He also submits that the petitioner of WPCRL
No. 680 of 2026 is also have nothing to do with these sale deeds
and, as such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. It is
argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even
otherwise the allegations as alleged appears to be civil in nature,
therefore, on this account alone the impugned FIR cannot sustain
and is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the
complainant, argued that the land, which was sold out pursuant
to these sale deeds, the reference of which has been given in the
impugned FIR, are located in different locations, which is far
away from the location of land, which was sold out to him
informant in the year of 2005. He submits that longitude, latitude
and the google location of both the properties sold out to
informant in the year 2005 and sold out by six sale deeds, the

5
reference of which has been given in the impugned FIR, are
totally different, therefore, those sale deeds are forged one.
7. On 11.05.2026, learned A.G.A. on instructions apprise to
this court that longitude and latitude of both the properties are
different.
8. To verify the exact location of the land of informant and the
land sold out by the different sale deeds, the reference of which
has been given in the impugned FIR, the revenue officials were
directed to get exact location of land including longitude, latitude
and also the google location.
In addition to this, learned counsel for the complainant Mr.
Neeraj Garg was also directed to place on record the document,
which he has procured by way of an additional affidavit.
9. Now, in compliance of the previous order of this court Mr.
B.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State placed before this court
the report of revenue officials and this court perused the entire
report, which reveals that location of land of informant as well as
location of land, which was sold out by different sale deeds, the
reference of which has been given in the impugned FIR, are
completely different and the ground distance in between both the
locations is about 2.5 km. and the aerial distance is about 230
meter. Thus, prima-facie from the report, it is clear that the
location of the land of the informant and the location of land sold
out by different sale deeds are different and even their longitude
and latitude are also different, therefore, it is clear that the land
sold out to the informant is entirely different to the land sold out
by different sale deeds. The extract of report are also being
reproduced herein as under:

6
“ ग्राम ई ː होप टाउन , परगना पछवादून, तहसील िवकासनगर,
देहरादून की खतौनी वषŊ 1399फ से 1404फ के खाता सं ƥा -556 पर
अंिकत आदेश तह. िव dkl नगर वाद सं ƥा -2049/09 िदन ka क 02.09.09 के
अनुसार खसरा न ɾर -872िम, रकबा 0.4620है० लगान परते से िवक्रेता
मोहनलाल, हरकेश कुमार पुत्रगण ब Ǆू लाल उफŊ बǄनलाल व बसȶी देवी
पȉी बǄू लाल उफŊ बǄन लाल िन. िटग का नाम खाįरज होकर मधुिवʼ पȉी
ˢ. रिवȾ प्रताप िबʼ िन. 225, प İǷतवाडी, देहरादून का नाम बैनामा दर
बैनामा संजय कुमार अग्रवाल पुत्र हįरचȽ अग्रवाल िन . गढ़ी कैǵ देहरादून
का नाम बतौर बैनामा (01.10.2009) दज Ŋ करने के आदेश पाįरत है। वतŊमान
खतौनी अनुसार उƅ भूिम खाता संƥा -556, खसरा न ɾर -872, म Ő उƅ
मूल िवक्रेतागणों के नाम भूिम शेष नहीं है। स्थल पर उपİस्थत उƅ क्रेता
q
संजय कुमार अग्रवाल भतीजे श्री įरश अग्रवाल ने िजस भूिम पर क्रेता संजय
अग्रवाल का क ɥा बताया है। वह ग्राम ईː होप टाउन का खसरा नɾ र -872
का भाग है।
यह भी अवगत कराना है िक संल ư िवक्रय पत्र िदन क 29.10.2005
ka
मौजा ई ː होप टाउन के अनुसार िवक्रेता मोहनलाल, हरकेश कुमार पुत्रगण
बǄूलाल उफŊ बǄन लाल व बसȶी देवी पȉी बǄू लाल उफŊ बǄन लाल
िन .िट.ग. ने खसरा न ɾर -872 िम. रकबा 0.462080 भूिम क्रेता मधुिब ʼ पȉी
ˢ. रिवȾ प्रताप िवʼ िनवासी देहरादून का नाम बैनामा दर बैनामा सजय
कुमार अग्रवाल पुत्र हįरचȽ अग्रवाल िनवासी गढीकैǵ को िवक्रय की गयी
है। िजसमŐ अƗांश व देशाȶर का उʟ ेख नहीं है।
उƅ भूिम खसरा नɾर -872िम. रकबा 0.4620है0 का नजरी
न ƕा संलư है, िजसमŐ उƅ भूिम के अƗांश व देशाȶर अंिकत है और
सहायक अिभयȶा पी .ड ɲू .डी िनमा Ŋण खǷ देहरादून Ȫारा प्रमािणत
है। ”
10. After perusal of the report, this court is also of the view that
the description of land as mentioned in six sale deeds, which are
subject matter of the impugned FIR though are the same to the
land of the informant but due to the difference in longitude and
latitude and different location it reveals that in ground reality
both the lands are two distinct properties. The informant filed an
additional affidavit bringing on record certain documents
including one affidavit of Mr. Ashutosh Tyagi and after gone
through with this affidavit of Mr. Ashutosh Tyagi what this court
has observed that as per this affidavit only the papers were sold
out but no land and the sale deed will be executed only without
possession. Such type of an affidavit create so many doubts and
easily an inference can be drawn that a syndicate of some peoples

7
are active to sold out the land on paper without any physical
possession and without disclosing the name of actual owner of
the land. At this juncture, it is necessary to reproduce the extract
of the affidavit of Mr. Ashutosh Tyagi, which is as follows:
“ Affidavit
क्रेता
आशुतोष ȑागी पुत्र श्री िवनोद कुमार िनवासी ए -13 सोफीनगर
सुभाषनगर Ŝड़की िजला हįरȪार उȅराखǷ ।
िवक्रेता
मै िकशनलाल व िकशोरी लाल पुत्र शकर लाल पता -1/57 लाईन परवल
पो०-उमेदपुर तहसील िवकासनगर िजला -देहरादून उ ȅराखǷ का
िनवासीšँ।हमने क्रेता को केवल अपनी जमीन के कागज बेचे है। हमारे
पास मौके पर जमीन का कɥा नही है। हमने केवल कागज बेचे है जमनी
नही। हमने क्रेता को कɥा नही बेचा है। केवल हम अपनी जमीन के कागज
बेच रहे है। कागजो की रिजːŌी करेगे मौके पर कɥा नही देगे न ही हम
कɥा बेच रहे है और न ही हमारी कɥे की िजʃेदारी होगी। हम केवल
रिजːŌी करेगे।
क्रेता िवक्रेता िकशोरी लाल ”
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the informant, submits
that infact this person, namely Ashutosh Tyagi is closely
associated with Aadil and Imtiyaz, the petitioners of WPCRL No.
1647 of 2025 and to the best of his knowledge he is working with
them as a driver. Mr. Garg submits that these two petitioners
namely Aadil and Imtiyaz are the key persons, who are running a
syndicate in the entire area to grab the land owned by the
Government or of individuals. He also submits that infact as per
the longitude and latitude as well as the google map the land,
which was sold out by the sale deeds, the reference of which has
been given in the impugned FIR, are the land of National
Highway Authority and in some portion a building of Transport
department being constructed.

8
11. In addition to this, Mr. Neeraj Garg pointed out that how
such a syndicate is active in the area is evident from the fact that
though the bank account is in the name of Harkesh Kumar, one of
the co-owner of the property with the Axis Bank i.e. account no.
is 925010015784215, however, this account number is linked with
mobile no. 91-8171454853, which is in the name of one “ Faiza
Khan ”. The account statement is also placed on record by Mr.
Neeraj Garg through an affidavit.
12. Mr. Rajat Mittal, who appears for the petitioners in
connected petitions also checked this mobile number in his true
caller and he also apprise that this mobile number belongs to one
Faiza Khan and is connected with “Google Pay App”.
13. Mr. Garg submits that infact the entire sale consideration
pursuant to the forged sale deeds are being transferred to a
person whose mobile SIM is connected with the bank account of
Harkesh Kumar.
Mr. Garg submits that all these aspects clearly establishes
that the syndicate of some persons are involved in grabbing the
land of the Government as well as of the private individuals,
therefore, the impugned FIR is required to be investigated by a
team of some police officials so that they may carry on with the
investigation. He also submits the assistance of Revenue Officials
is also required for fair investigation in order to find out the exact
location of land through a sajra map as well.
14. In reference to WPCRL No. 545 of 2025, 546 of 2026 and 554
of 2026 Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the complaiant,
submits that petitioners of all these petitions are showing that
they are the bonafide purchaser but infact very cleverly all these
persons purchased the land, which is against the mandate of

9
Section 154(4)(1)(a) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act as amended in the State
of Uttarakhand, wherein, there is a restriction of purchase of land
of more than 250 sq. mts. by the persons who belongs to the
different State.
He submits after gone through with the sale deed of the
petitioners of all these three petitions it is clear that they all
belongs to the same family and Head of the family is Mr.
Rajkishore Tripathi, the petitioner of WPCRL No. 546 of 2026 and
Mrs. Madhuri Tripathi, the petitioner of WPCRL No. 554 of 2026
is his wife and the petitioner of WPCRL No. 545 of 2026 Mr. Nitin
Kumar Tripathi is his son. The total area, which all these three
persons have purchased from different three sale deeds are
exceeded with the limit of 250 sq.mts. as mentioned in Section
154(4)(1)(a) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.
He submits that due to the restrictions of purchasing the
land of more than 250 sq.mts. as per the aforesaid provision Mr.
Rajkishore Tripathi, the head of the family, get three sale deeds,
one in his own name and other two in the name of his wife and
son and the area exceeds 250 sq.mts., however, in the sale deed of
Mrs. Madhuri Tripahti, she has not disclosed her identity as wife
of Rajkishore Tripathi rather she has shown her identity by
showing her father’s name, and, similarly, in the sale deed of
Nitin Kumar Tripathi he has shown his identity by showing his
father’s name, in short, i.e. “RAK” , which is short form of
Rajkishore Tripathi. He submits it is a deliberate attempt on their
part since they know it very well that there is a restriction in
terms of Section 154 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act that they cannot
purchase the land above the ceiling limit, therefore, they
conspired to purchase all three different sale deeds.

10
15. On the other side, Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. though
adopt the afguemnt of Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the
informant, but submits on instructions that sufficient materials
have been collected during investigation against the petitioners of
these batch of petitions and the land location of the land of
informant are totally different to the location of the land sold out
by the different sale deeds, the reference of which has been given
in the impugned FIR. He also submits that the investigation
reveals that the petitioners of WPCRL No. 1647 of 2025 is the key
person, who are running a syndicate and there may be a
possibility that some more persons are also involved in this,
therefore, the matter requires thorough investigation. He also
submits on instructions that the investigation reveals that the
land owned by the Government have also been sold out. He also
submits that some part of the land belongs to the National
Highway Authority and in one part a building of Transport
department is also under construction
16. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the
parties and after gone through with the record including the
impugned FIR and the report submitted by the Revenue Officials
in the additional affidavit by the informant as well as the counter
affidavit what this court has observed that there may be a
possibility that a group of some people are involved in grabbing
the land of the Government including of individuals, which is
evident from the fact that the location of the land of informant is
completely different to the land sold out by six different sale
deeds, the reference of which has been given in the impugned
FIR. At this juncture, this aspect also cannot be ruled out that
there may be a possibility that some officials of the Revenue
department or the office of Sub-Registrar may also be involved.
This court really very shocked to know that the bank account of

11
Harkesh Kumar is linked with the mobile of a different person
namely Faiza Khan and as per the account statement there is
various transactions. This is really a glaring example, which
reveals that some peoples are active in executing the forged sale
deeds and there may be a possibility that syndicate of few
persons may be active and, therefore, the impugned FIR at this
juncture cannot be quashed since there are sufficient material,
which requires thorough investigation.
17. Now, this court is of the view that the investigation of the
impugned FIR cannot be carried out by one official of police
department and it is necessary to transfer the investigation either
to the SIT or the committee of the police officials to be headed by
one officer of the rank of Dy.S.P. and the entire investigation
should be monitored by the D.G.P., Head of the Department. This
court is also of the view that such a committee should also be
provided the assistance of Revenue Officials to find out the exact
location of land since without their assistance the investigation
cannot be carried out in a fair manner.
18. In such view of the matter, all these petitions are dismissed
being devoid of merit with the following directions:
i. The Directorate General of Police of the State immediately
constitute a team for the purposes of investigating the
impugned FIR to be headed by an official not below the
rank of Dy.S.P.
ii. The said team shall be constituted by the D.G.P. within ten
days from the date of receipt of this judgment.
iii. The Directorate General of Police is also directed to get the
assistance of Revenue Officials and for that purposes he
may also request to the Secretary concerned to nominate

12
some Revenue Officials in order to assist the team so
constituted. Simultaneously, the concerned Secretary is also
directed to nominate the Revenue Official in order to assist
the team so constituted by the D.G.P.
iv. The D.G.P. shall monitor the entire investigation
periodically to get latest update from the head of the team
so constituted.
19. The order of interim protection granted earlier by the
Coordinate Bench in all these petitions are also vacated forthwith
except in WPCRL No. 545 of 2026 and 554 of 2026 since the
petitioners of these two petitions are the wife and the son of
petitioner of WPCRL 546 of 2026 namely Rajkishore Tripathi,
therefore, the petitioners of these two petitions Nitin Kumar
Tripathi and Mrs. Madhuri Tripathi are given protection from
arrest provided they cooperate with the investigation.
20. No order as to costs.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

14.05.2026
PR