MANU/JK/0364/2018

True Court CopyTM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU

OWP No. 726/2008, MP No. 1073/2008, OWP No. 502/2008, MP Nos. 01/2017, 777/2008, OWP No. 539/2008, MP No. 820/2008 and OWP No. 552/2008, MP No. 840/2008

Decided On: 14.05.2018

Appellants: Ashok Parmar Vs. Respondent: State and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Alok Aradhe and M.K. Hanjura

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. The pivotal issue in this batch of writ petitions revolves around the validity of report dated 30.05.2008 submitted by the J & K State Accountability Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') to the State Government. The writ petitions were, therefore, heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the facility of reference, facts from OWP No. 726/2008 are being referred to.

Factual Background:-

2. The genesis of the report dated 30.05.2008 submitted by Commission lies in a complaint made by one Mangotam Dass. He filed a complaint before the Commission, in which it was stated that he has leased out 3 kanals and 4 marlas of land in favour of one Jeet Singh and entered into a lease agreement with him. Since Jeet Singh did not adhere to terms and conditions of the lease, therefore, the Mangotam Dass cancelled the lease deed, which even otherwise was null and void. It was further averred in the complaint that Jeet Singh forcibly tried to dispossess him, therefore, the complainant filed a civil suit in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur. In the aforesaid proceeding, an order of status quo was passed, by the trial Court. It was also stated in the complaint that even though Basant Ram, the then Tehsildar, was not competent to attest the change of any entry in the revenue record, in view of various standing orders, yet Om Parkash, the then Girdawar and one Saleem Banday, the then Patwari, changed the entries in the revenue record which were duly attested by Basant Ram, as a result of which, Jeet Singh dispossessed the complainant from the land in question. The complainant, thereafter, made a written complaint to the Vigilance Organization, which instead of investigating the matter forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, who, in turn directed the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) to investigate the matter.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, as per the complaint submitted a report dated 04.02.2003, in which it was stated that Om Prakash, the then Girdawar, changed the entries in the revenue record of Rabi 2002 and entered the name of Jeet Singh and he was not competent to do, and no enquiry was conducted while attesting Mutation. Despite receipt of report, neither the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur nor the Vigilance Organization took any action against the delinquent officials. Thereupon the complainant filed OWP No. 910/2003 before this Court for registration of case against delinquent officials, which was dismissed in default and was restored. Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn by the complainant. Thereafter, he filed the complaint before the Commission.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that Basant Ram, the then Tehsildar, on the basis of report submitted by the Patwari, which was endorsed by the Girdawar, attested the mutation in terms of Section 28-A of the J & K Agrarian Reforms Act vide order dated 14.05.2002, which was upheld in appeal by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.07.2002. However, on a revision being preferred, J & K Special Tribunal remitted the case to the Tehsildar for further enquiry on the ground that adequate opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the complainant Mangotam Dass.

5. The Commission in its report dated 30.05.2008, inter alia, held that transfer of any title or interest in immovable property on the basis of an unregistered deed cannot vest the land or any rights in the transferee. Thus, the transfer was made in violation of provisions of Transfer of Property Act. It was also held that Basant Ram, the then Tehsildar, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the complainant and in stark contravention of Section 28-A(2) of J & K Agrarian........