SC rejects ex-IAS officer’s plea to quash criminal case over Bhuj allotments

However, the Court provided him with protection from arrest, citing the six-year delay in the registration of the case, which occurred in 2012

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the continuation of criminal proceedings against former Indian administrative service (IAS) officer Pradip N Sharma in a land allotment case from his tenure as district collector of Bhuj in 2006. However, the Court provided him with protection from arrest, citing the six-year delay in registering the case, which occurred in 2012.

The top court’s decision came in response to an appeal against the Gujarat High Court’s March 1, 2019 order, which had refused to quash the criminal case against Sharma (Hindustan Times)

A bench headed by justice Vikram Nath said, “We have dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the criminal case but have granted anticipatory bail.”

The top court’s decision came in response to an appeal against the Gujarat High Court’s March 1, 2019 order, which had refused to quash the criminal case against Sharma. An FIR was filed with the criminal investigation department (CID) crime branch, Rajkot Zone, in Bhuj, accusing Sharma of offences including criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and forgery, under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The government had allotted 17 acres of land to rehabilitate 2001 earthquake-affected Beed Gate market traders. The land meant for the G5 category victims (the worst-hit) was, however, allotted at a throwaway price to those not entitled to the benefit. Sharma was accused of making arbitrary land allotments to industrial establishments. Of the 400 beneficiaries, more than 300 were allegedly not legitimate.

In the petition filed through advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh, Sharma argued that the unexplained delay of nearly six years in lodging the FIR was fatal to the case and that, on this ground alone, it should be dismissed. Additionally, he claimed to be a victim of “political malice.”

According to him, he and his brother “are not in the good books of the current political set up.” His brother refused to toe the line of the political masters in the state, and as a result, Sharma and his brother incurred the wrath of the state.

Even on merits, Sharma said that the period when he was posted in Bhuj was the time when the district was recovering from the devastating earthquake in Bhuj in 2001. “This was a period when the government worked overtime to normalise the life in the region of Bhuj. Therefore, it is possible that some officer of the collectorate did not check the documents in great detail,” he said.

The allegation was that lands nearby were allotted at rates ranging from ₹20 to ₹40 per square metre, while the lands allotted by Sharma were priced at ₹19 per square metre. Sharma argued that no industrial activity was initiated by the allottees and that, on the surface, the allegations do not amount to any criminal offence.

Further, he said that during the period from 2006 to 2012, those who succeeded the petitioner extended the period of construction of various allotments, which goes on to show that the orders passed by the petitioner were proper. In few cases of allotments under question, the property had relegated back to the state government on account of breach of conditions, the petition added.

This is one of the many cases lodged against Sharma in which he will now face trial. The state had opposed any relief to the petitioner and had supported the HC order, which said that investigation was required to reveal the truth of the matter.