Charge-sheet dismissed, petitioner discharged
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 8: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set-aside the order passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption Jammu whereby charges for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act were framed against Kiran Wattal, the then Commissioner Jammu Municipal Corporation. Moreover, High Court dismissed the charge-sheet and discharged the petitioner.
The investigating agency in the charge-sheet had mentioned that petitioner, in his capacity as Commissioner Municipal Corporation Jammu, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched with the Senior Town Planner, co-accused Farzana Nakshbandi, and the beneficiaries Pardeep Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar, approved the building permission/plan by misusing and abusing his official position.
The order of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Jammu was challenged before the High Court on the ground that the beneficiaries were having a clear title to the land on which the building was sought to be erected, in as much as, they were lessees of the land in question by virtue of two perpetual lease deeds executed by the duly authorized persons in their favour.
“A lessee is entitled to raise construction on the land demised to him and the Municipal Corporation cannot refuse building permission in favour of a lessee on the ground that he is not the actual owner of the land in question”, the counsels for the petitioners submitted, adding “in the instant case there was no need to send the building permission case of the beneficiaries to BOCA, as in terms of Administrative Department communication dated 12.07.2012 for ease of doing business, the online permissions were issued to the applicants for hassle free service and the meetings of BOCA were discontinued from September, 2012 to November, 2015”.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “the material on record annexed to the charge-sheet clearly shows that the beneficiaries were in possession of perpetual lease deeds and a decree of legal heir passed by the civil court in their favour in respect of the land on which the building was sought to be erected”.
“These documents form a sufficient proof of ownership of the beneficiaries in terms of Regulation 8 of COBA Regulations, as such, the same could not have been ignored by the petitioner while considering the building permission case of the beneficiaries”, High Court said, adding “the petitioner by acting upon the documents produced by the beneficiaries, who were the lessees of the land in question, coupled with the report of the revenue authorities–Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, has arrived at right conclusion that there was a clear title in favour of the beneficiaries and, accordingly, building permission was to be granted in their favour”.
With these observations, High Court allowed the petition and set-aside the impugned order passed by the trial court against the petitioner. Moreover, High Court discharged the petitioner and dismissed the charge-sheet.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
