State Vigilance Organization is duty bound to unravel cases of shady dealings in any department if and when reported to it. As watchdog, its duties will not be welcomed by those whose record is tainted. It is a formidable task because corruption has seethed down to the entire society. The task of SVO is rendered very difficult and even indefinite by the fact that administration fails to bring the corrupt persons to book through proper judicial mechanism. We have often said that the most important ingredient of good governance is accountability. Our laws are complicated, our judicial structure is complicated and prosecution system too is complicated and time consuming. Enough time and space are allowed to the culprits to get themselves absolved of charges. Additionally, administrative machinery is suffering from a strong element of nepotism. Once a functionary is identified as violator of rules and functioning in autocratic and selfish manner, he galvanizes his sympathizers into action aimed at bringing the administration under pressure.
We have a glaring case of corruption under examination. The State Vigilance has directed for registration of a case against Revenue officials. Ownership of 4 kanals of prime land in Rajbagh locality of the city of Srinagar was conferred on one Sita Devi under Roshni Act on 30 June 2007. Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar confirmed ownership on 4 March 2008. Mutation has been entered in the Mutation Register on 16 April 2008. But Sita Devi had died more than three months prior to the entry of mutation in the records in the name of Sita Devi.
The question is how did revenue authorities enter mutation in the revenue records when the incumbent had already expired? We all know that the person in whose name mutation is to be entered has to be present before the revenue authorities in person and two persons are required as witnesses who can certify his identity and address. Apparently this important condition has not been observed and mutation has been made without asking for the presence of Sita Devi and the witnesses that would have identified her. It is the beginning of some shady deal shaping in the case. And that came to fore without loss of time when one Shamsher Singh appeared from nowhere and claimed to have become inheritor of late Sita Devi’s immoveable property by virtue of a will deed which allegedly was got registered, perhaps after Sita Devi had passed away. It is at this point that so many questions are raised. Making entries into revenue records is the task of a full hierarchical structure in the Revenue Department. Vital entries in this record are fundamentally made by the Patwaris. But then Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and finally the District Commissioner are required to examine, satisfy themselves and endorse mutation. How come that in the case of mutation in the name of Sita Devi took place when she had already died? It smells rat.
Secondly how come that one Shamsher Singh emerges on the scene suddenly and produces a will deed which again is accepted by the revenue authorities and ownership transferred to him although he had not made the full payment of 72 lacs of rupees as the cost of the land? This adds more doubts to the entire case and the simple inference one can draw is that unless the revenue authorities are accomplices in this fraudulent case, it could not have been dealt with so casually by revenue officials who are known for their discreet handling of revenue records and enters. We are not actually going to dabble in the legalities of the case and prove or disprove respective stands of parties involved. We would like to impress upon the Government agencies that unearthing cases of corruption in Government Departments is a complicated matter, and unless the official machinery cooperates with the vigilance organization proper justice cannot be done to the parties concerned.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel