Bachchan had challenged the order of the Faizabad additional commissioner who had dismissed his petition relating to purchase of government farmland at Daulatpur village in Uttar Pradesh`s Barabanki district by claiming to be a farmer.

The Uttar Pradesh government had alleged that Bachchan had committed fraud by claiming that he was a resident of 17, Clive Road, Allahabad, while filing his application for allotment of farmland.

The Faizabad additional commissioner had ruled that the 1993 Barabanki land transfer in Bachchan's name was illegal.

Significantly, however, the court agreed that the fraudulently made entries in the land records be corrected and the land be restored to the gram sabha (village executive), which originally owned the property.

Bachchan's counsel Gaurav Bhatia welcomed the judgement.

'Nothing could have been better as far as we are concerned. It is surely a judicious order and has proved that there was no foul play by Mr. Bachchan,' Bhatia told IANS.

However, the UP government's chief standing counsel Devendra Upadhaya termed the verdict as 'contradictory'. He said' 'I would advise the state to appeal against the order before the apex court.'

Bachchan was charged with committing 'forgery' and 'fraud' in getting his name entered in the official revenue records as the legitimate allottee of some 2.75 bighas of land (about 70,000 sq ft) in Daulatpur village of Barabanki district.

The Faizabad divisional commissioner, where Bachchan had filed an appeal, had upheld Barabanki district magistrate's order of March 24, 2006. The commissioner had ruled that the 1993 Barabanki land transfer in Bachchan's name was illegal.

In June 2007, the commissioner had also ordered criminal proceedings to be initiated against the star, who in turn went about claiming that he was being hounded by the Mayawati administration because of his proximity with the ousted Mulayam Singh Yadav regime.

Consequently, Bachchan filed a writ petition before the high court, seeking relief from any criminal action. He also pleaded before the court that both the district magistrate and the commissioner had passed the verdict against him without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

Interestingly, while the writ was pending, the gram sabha counsel made a formal offer before the court that if Bachchan were to surrender his claim to the land in dispute, he would not press for criminal proceedings.

That was what brought to Bachchan the much-needed relief as the court too agreed that no criminal proceedings were warranted against him in the light of his formal abdication of claim to the said land.

The court turned down the state government's plea that mere surrender of the land could not absolve Bachchan of the charge of using fraudulent means to get the gram sabha land transferred to him.

The judge held that since there was no evidence of any forgery or fraud having been committed by the petitioner, there was no need for taking any criminal action against him.
...Back