Kamla Devi v. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No

appellant had submitted an affidavit of Shri Ram Bahadur Mishra (A.W.1), stating therein that the appellant had purchased a house constructed upon Gata No. 431 on sale consideration of Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another Rs.10,00,000/- and the sale consideration was taken by him in installment from the appellant and he had not taken the sale consideration from any bank account of the appellant and sale deed of this property was also submitted. In respect of Gata No. 581 area 729 Sq. Ft. situated in Mittai ward, village Lilahura, Haidergarh and a house constructed thereon is concerned, the appellant had submitted sale deed of the property, bearing Gata No. 581, which was purchased from Babulal Maurya on a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- in the year 2014 and after purchasing it, appellant had constructed a house upon Gata No. 581. Appellant had stated that she had purchased Gata No. 581 by taking loan from the bank and in support thereof, she had filed copy of the bank statement of the year 2014. (5) Apparently, the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record and going through the order of attachment, confirmed the order of the District Magistrate dated 03.04.2023 in respect of property, bearing Gata no. 581, however, set-aside the order dated 03.04.2023 in respect of property, bearing No. 431, with certain conditions by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2024. (6) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.01.2024, confirming the order of the District Magistrate dated Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another

03.04.2023 in respect of property, bearing Gata No, 581, the appellant has filed the present appeal. (7) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant is the owner of two immovable properties acquired by her in the year 2014 through her lawful sources of income. One is a two storey residential house of 377 Sq. Ft. situated in Gata No. 431, Thatharahi Ward, Nagar Panchayat, Haidergarh, in which the appellant was living as a tenant. The appellant had purchased the aforesaid two storey house from its owner Ram Bahadur Mishra on a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- through sale deed, which was paid in cash by installments. He states that the appellant paid part of the amount before her retirement in 2012 when she was living in the aforesaid hose as a tenant and the appellant has paid the rest of the amount also in cash installments after getting her retirement benefits in 2012-

13. In this regard, the seller of the property, namely, Shri Ram Bahadur Mishra has given an affidavit before the trial Court, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the second supplementary affidavit. He states that in para-5 of the supplementary affidavit, the appellant has also mentioned the details of payment made to the seller by cash installment for purchase of the said two storey residential house of 377 Sq. Ft. in Gata No. 431. Appellant has also filed copy of her statement Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another of bank account w.e.f. 01.01.2012 to 05.05.2014 as Annexure No. SA-2 to the second supplementary affidavit. (8) So far as a semi-constructed plot of 729 Sq. Ft. on Gata No. 581 situated in Mittai Ward, is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this property was purchased by the appellant from Babulal Maurya in the year 2014 by paying the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash installments from time to time and got it constructed by taking a bank loan in her name. He states that the details of withdrawal of total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- that has been paid to seller Babulal Maurya in cash installment before the execution of sale deed i.e.

05.05.2014 for the purchase of plot in Gata No. 581 has been shown in para-4 of the first supplementary affidavit. He states that the appellant had purchased the property in Gata No. 581 through her legal sources of income by withdrawing the amount from time to time from her bank account and even after withdrawing total Rs.4,00,000/- from her bank account on several dates, the appellant still had Rs.6,25,691/- left in the bank account as on 05.05.2014. Appellant has also filed bank account statement as Annexure No. SA-1 to the first supplementary affidavit. He also states that the appellant had constructed house on the plot in Gata No. 581 by taking a housing loan of Rs.4,70,000/- from the bank in her name, which was sanctioned on 11.04.2015 and for which she paid dues till Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another

09.06.2023 and thereafter, no dues certificate has been issued from the bank. A copy of the No Dues Certificate issued from the Bank regarding the housing loan has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-3 to the first supplementary affidavit. (9) Learned Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant has retired from the post of Basic Health Worker in the year 2012 and she has also ancestral agricultural land in Village Naroli in her name which she got from her maternal father. He states that in the said agricultural land, wheat, paddy, fenugreek, potato and sugercane are grown which generate income of Rs.3-4 Lakhs in a year and the same along with the pension received by the appellant has been utilized by her for day to day living. A copy of khasra and khatauni showing land of the appellant’s name has been annexed as Annexure No. SA- 2 to the first supplementary affidavit. (10) Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has purchased both the properties i.e. Gata No. 431 and 581 through her legal sources of income by withdrawing the amount from time to time from her bank account and even after withdrawing total Rs.14,00,000/- from her bank on several dates, the appellant still had Rs.6,25,691/- left in the bank account as on 05.05.2014, therefore, the prosecution wrongly presumed that both the property in question were purchased by the appellant from the earning from criminal activities of her Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another son. He also states that since the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant is a gangster and she wrongfully acquired the property in question in her name, the impugned proceeding under Section 14 of the Act initiated by District Magistrate, Barabanki on the report of the Station House Officer, P.S. Lonikatra, District Barabanki, and also the impugned orders dated 05.07.2022 and the order dated

03.04.2023, are liable to be set aside. (11) Learned A.G.A. while opposing the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the trial Court, after examining all the facts and witnesses passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the same. (12) Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders, this Court deem it apt to first consider the provisions of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, 1986, which read as under :- "2(b). "Gang" means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities, ....... ....... 2(c). "gangster" means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities;" namely- Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another (13) On a conjoint reading of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, 1986, it reveals that for taking action under Section 14 of the Act, 1986 against a person, there must be material for objective determination of the District Magistrate that he either, as a member, leader or organiser of a gang acquired any property as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. There must be nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him/her. His/her mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his/her property, as it is necessary to find out that whether his/her acquisition of property was a result of commission of any offence enumerated in the Act, 1986 being a gangster. Further, one might have committed several offences but if the property acquired by him/her with the aid of his/her earning from legal source, no action under Section 14 of the Act can be taken against him/her. (14) Section 14 of the Act, 1986 reads as under :- "14. Attachment of property. - (1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court. (2) The provisions of the Code shall, mutatis mutandis apply to every such attachment. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Code the District Magistrate may appoint an Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another Administrator of any property attached under subsection (1) and the Administrator shall have all the powers to administer such property in the best interest thereof. (4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property." (15) The aforesaid provisions of Section 14 clearly provides that the order of the District Magistrate attaching one's property, must be based on reason and not arbitrary. The expression "reason to believe" appearing therein has some intent and purpose. It puts fetter in the arbitrary exercise of power of attachment to deny a person of his/her right to any property. Law requires that there must be reason to believe that the property sought to be attached, has been acquired by a ''gangster' as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. The expression "reason to believe" contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation involving judicial review, as distinguished from purely subjective consideration. There must be rational and intelligible nexus between ''reason' and ''belief'. The word ''believe' is a very much stronger word than ''suspect' and it involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such that a prudent man must have felt convinced in his mind that what has been alleged, is true. The expression "reason to believe" is also defined in Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the said definition, a person is said to have ''reason to believe' a thing, if he/she has Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. "Reason to believe" is not the same thing as the ''suspicion' or ''doubt' and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. "Reason to believe" is a higher level of state of mind. The Court, of course, cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons examined by the authority in coming to the believe, but the Court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing in the matter in regard to which it is required to entertain the belief. (16) In the instant case, the appellant was not the accused of any criminal case, but the property of the appellant was attached on the pretext that her sons, who were involved in criminal case, might have purchased the property in question in the name of her mother i.e. appellant. Admittedly, the impugned attachment order is based on Case Crime No. 149 of 2022 registered against the sons of the appellant. In such circumstances, since the prosecution failed to prove the appellant as a gangster, the attachment order itself goes. Further, it is evident that the order of attachment is based on the report of the Station House Officer, but the District Magistrate has not mentioned in his order that as to how the property in question was linked with the money earned by the appellant from the criminal activities. Moreover, no proper reasons were given in the order of attachment for believing that the property in question was Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another earned by the appellant from criminal activities of her sons. It is also evident from the record that before the trial Court, it has been stated by the appellant that she was retired from the post of Basic Health Worker in the year 2012 and he purchased the property, bearing No. 581 in the year 2014, amounting to Rs.4 Lakhs through cash which was paid to the seller Babulal Maurya in installments and after purchasing it, she took bank loan for construction of a house thereon. Appellant has annexed a copy of the bank account statement as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit and has stated that after paying the amount in installments to the Seller Babulal Maurya, still Rs.6,25,691/- was left in her account as on 05.05.2014. Apart from it, the appellant has also agricultural income of Rs.3-4 laks and also got pension. Admittedly, all these facts were not considered by the trial Court in right perspective and merely on the basis of presumption that appellant’s son might have purchased the property in question in the name of her mother i.e. appellant by getting the amount from criminal activities. (17) It has been informed by the learned Counsel for the parties that house of the appellant constructed on Gata No. 431, area 377 Sq. Ft. situated in village Thatharahi, Haidergarh, district Barabanki has already been released in favour of the appellant in pursuance of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024. Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another (18) In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the attachment order dated 05.07.2022 and 03.04.2023 were passed by the District Magistrate without any reasonable ground and the trial Court, while passing the impugned order 31.01.2024, had also failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence placed by the appellant in right perspective in respect of Gata No. 581. (19) Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 05.07.2022 and

03.04.2023 passed by the District Magistrate as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 in respect of Gata No. 581, situated at Mitai Ward, Village Lilhaura, Haidergarh, district Barabanki, are hereby set-aside. Property in question i.e. Gata No. 581, situated at Mitai Ward, Village Lilhaura, Haidergarh, district Barabanki shall be released to the appellant forthwith. (20) The present appeal stands allowed. Order Date :- 27.01.2025 Ajit/- (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another

appellant had submitted an affidavit of Shri Ram Bahadur Mishra (A.W.1), stating therein that the appellant had purchased a house constructed upon Gata No. 431 on sale consideration of Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another Rs.10,00,000/- and the sale consideration was taken by him in installment from the appellant and he had not taken the sale consideration from any bank account of the appellant and sale deed of this property was also submitted. In respect of Gata No. 581 area 729 Sq. Ft. situated in Mittai ward, village Lilahura, Haidergarh and a house constructed thereon is concerned, the appellant had submitted sale deed of the property, bearing Gata No. 581, which was purchased from Babulal Maurya on a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- in the year 2014 and after purchasing it, appellant had constructed a house upon Gata No. 581. Appellant had stated that she had purchased Gata No. 581 by taking loan from the bank and in support thereof, she had filed copy of the bank statement of the year 2014. (5) Apparently, the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record and going through the order of attachment, confirmed the order of the District Magistrate dated 03.04.2023 in respect of property, bearing Gata no. 581, however, set-aside the order dated 03.04.2023 in respect of property, bearing No. 431, with certain conditions by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2024. (6) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.01.2024, confirming the order of the District Magistrate dated Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another

03.04.2023 in respect of property, bearing Gata No, 581, the appellant has filed the present appeal. (7) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant is the owner of two immovable properties acquired by her in the year 2014 through her lawful sources of income. One is a two storey residential house of 377 Sq. Ft. situated in Gata No. 431, Thatharahi Ward, Nagar Panchayat, Haidergarh, in which the appellant was living as a tenant. The appellant had purchased the aforesaid two storey house from its owner Ram Bahadur Mishra on a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- through sale deed, which was paid in cash by installments. He states that the appellant paid part of the amount before her retirement in 2012 when she was living in the aforesaid hose as a tenant and the appellant has paid the rest of the amount also in cash installments after getting her retirement benefits in 2012-

13. In this regard, the seller of the property, namely, Shri Ram Bahadur Mishra has given an affidavit before the trial Court, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the second supplementary affidavit. He states that in para-5 of the supplementary affidavit, the appellant has also mentioned the details of payment made to the seller by cash installment for purchase of the said two storey residential house of 377 Sq. Ft. in Gata No. 431. Appellant has also filed copy of her statement Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another of bank account w.e.f. 01.01.2012 to 05.05.2014 as Annexure No. SA-2 to the second supplementary affidavit. (8) So far as a semi-constructed plot of 729 Sq. Ft. on Gata No. 581 situated in Mittai Ward, is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this property was purchased by the appellant from Babulal Maurya in the year 2014 by paying the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash installments from time to time and got it constructed by taking a bank loan in her name. He states that the details of withdrawal of total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- that has been paid to seller Babulal Maurya in cash installment before the execution of sale deed i.e.

05.05.2014 for the purchase of plot in Gata No. 581 has been shown in para-4 of the first supplementary affidavit. He states that the appellant had purchased the property in Gata No. 581 through her legal sources of income by withdrawing the amount from time to time from her bank account and even after withdrawing total Rs.4,00,000/- from her bank account on several dates, the appellant still had Rs.6,25,691/- left in the bank account as on 05.05.2014. Appellant has also filed bank account statement as Annexure No. SA-1 to the first supplementary affidavit. He also states that the appellant had constructed house on the plot in Gata No. 581 by taking a housing loan of Rs.4,70,000/- from the bank in her name, which was sanctioned on 11.04.2015 and for which she paid dues till Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another

09.06.2023 and thereafter, no dues certificate has been issued from the bank. A copy of the No Dues Certificate issued from the Bank regarding the housing loan has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-3 to the first supplementary affidavit. (9) Learned Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant has retired from the post of Basic Health Worker in the year 2012 and she has also ancestral agricultural land in Village Naroli in her name which she got from her maternal father. He states that in the said agricultural land, wheat, paddy, fenugreek, potato and sugercane are grown which generate income of Rs.3-4 Lakhs in a year and the same along with the pension received by the appellant has been utilized by her for day to day living. A copy of khasra and khatauni showing land of the appellant’s name has been annexed as Annexure No. SA- 2 to the first supplementary affidavit. (10) Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has purchased both the properties i.e. Gata No. 431 and 581 through her legal sources of income by withdrawing the amount from time to time from her bank account and even after withdrawing total Rs.14,00,000/- from her bank on several dates, the appellant still had Rs.6,25,691/- left in the bank account as on 05.05.2014, therefore, the prosecution wrongly presumed that both the property in question were purchased by the appellant from the earning from criminal activities of her Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another son. He also states that since the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant is a gangster and she wrongfully acquired the property in question in her name, the impugned proceeding under Section 14 of the Act initiated by District Magistrate, Barabanki on the report of the Station House Officer, P.S. Lonikatra, District Barabanki, and also the impugned orders dated 05.07.2022 and the order dated

03.04.2023, are liable to be set aside. (11) Learned A.G.A. while opposing the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the trial Court, after examining all the facts and witnesses passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the same. (12) Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders, this Court deem it apt to first consider the provisions of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, 1986, which read as under :- "2(b). "Gang" means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities, ....... ....... 2(c). "gangster" means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities;" namely- Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another (13) On a conjoint reading of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, 1986, it reveals that for taking action under Section 14 of the Act, 1986 against a person, there must be material for objective determination of the District Magistrate that he either, as a member, leader or organiser of a gang acquired any property as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. There must be nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him/her. His/her mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his/her property, as it is necessary to find out that whether his/her acquisition of property was a result of commission of any offence enumerated in the Act, 1986 being a gangster. Further, one might have committed several offences but if the property acquired by him/her with the aid of his/her earning from legal source, no action under Section 14 of the Act can be taken against him/her. (14) Section 14 of the Act, 1986 reads as under :- "14. Attachment of property. - (1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court. (2) The provisions of the Code shall, mutatis mutandis apply to every such attachment. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Code the District Magistrate may appoint an Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another Administrator of any property attached under subsection (1) and the Administrator shall have all the powers to administer such property in the best interest thereof. (4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property." (15) The aforesaid provisions of Section 14 clearly provides that the order of the District Magistrate attaching one's property, must be based on reason and not arbitrary. The expression "reason to believe" appearing therein has some intent and purpose. It puts fetter in the arbitrary exercise of power of attachment to deny a person of his/her right to any property. Law requires that there must be reason to believe that the property sought to be attached, has been acquired by a ''gangster' as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. The expression "reason to believe" contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation involving judicial review, as distinguished from purely subjective consideration. There must be rational and intelligible nexus between ''reason' and ''belief'. The word ''believe' is a very much stronger word than ''suspect' and it involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such that a prudent man must have felt convinced in his mind that what has been alleged, is true. The expression "reason to believe" is also defined in Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the said definition, a person is said to have ''reason to believe' a thing, if he/she has Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. "Reason to believe" is not the same thing as the ''suspicion' or ''doubt' and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. "Reason to believe" is a higher level of state of mind. The Court, of course, cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons examined by the authority in coming to the believe, but the Court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing in the matter in regard to which it is required to entertain the belief. (16) In the instant case, the appellant was not the accused of any criminal case, but the property of the appellant was attached on the pretext that her sons, who were involved in criminal case, might have purchased the property in question in the name of her mother i.e. appellant. Admittedly, the impugned attachment order is based on Case Crime No. 149 of 2022 registered against the sons of the appellant. In such circumstances, since the prosecution failed to prove the appellant as a gangster, the attachment order itself goes. Further, it is evident that the order of attachment is based on the report of the Station House Officer, but the District Magistrate has not mentioned in his order that as to how the property in question was linked with the money earned by the appellant from the criminal activities. Moreover, no proper reasons were given in the order of attachment for believing that the property in question was Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another earned by the appellant from criminal activities of her sons. It is also evident from the record that before the trial Court, it has been stated by the appellant that she was retired from the post of Basic Health Worker in the year 2012 and he purchased the property, bearing No. 581 in the year 2014, amounting to Rs.4 Lakhs through cash which was paid to the seller Babulal Maurya in installments and after purchasing it, she took bank loan for construction of a house thereon. Appellant has annexed a copy of the bank account statement as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit and has stated that after paying the amount in installments to the Seller Babulal Maurya, still Rs.6,25,691/- was left in her account as on 05.05.2014. Apart from it, the appellant has also agricultural income of Rs.3-4 laks and also got pension. Admittedly, all these facts were not considered by the trial Court in right perspective and merely on the basis of presumption that appellant’s son might have purchased the property in question in the name of her mother i.e. appellant by getting the amount from criminal activities. (17) It has been informed by the learned Counsel for the parties that house of the appellant constructed on Gata No. 431, area 377 Sq. Ft. situated in village Thatharahi, Haidergarh, district Barabanki has already been released in favour of the appellant in pursuance of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024. Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another (18) In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the attachment order dated 05.07.2022 and 03.04.2023 were passed by the District Magistrate without any reasonable ground and the trial Court, while passing the impugned order 31.01.2024, had also failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence placed by the appellant in right perspective in respect of Gata No. 581. (19) Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 05.07.2022 and

03.04.2023 passed by the District Magistrate as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 in respect of Gata No. 581, situated at Mitai Ward, Village Lilhaura, Haidergarh, district Barabanki, are hereby set-aside. Property in question i.e. Gata No. 581, situated at Mitai Ward, Village Lilhaura, Haidergarh, district Barabanki shall be released to the appellant forthwith. (20) The present appeal stands allowed. Order Date :- 27.01.2025 Ajit/- (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2024 : Kamla Devi alias Kamla Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and another