Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 14: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MK Hanjura today quashed the recommendations of State Accountability Commission (SAC) against two Deputy Commissioners namely Ashok Parmar and Atul Dullo, Basant Ram, the then Tehsildar, Om Prakash the then Girdawar and Saleem Bandey, the then Patwari.
The Accountability Commission in its report dated 30.05.2008 had 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. 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 Reforms Act, attested the mutation to divest the complainant of his rights in the property.
Thus, the Tehsildar acted in hot haste and his action amounts to ‘allegation’, as defined in Section 2(3) of the Accountability Commission Act. It was further held that the Act does not bar Commission’s jurisdiction to consider a complaint in respect of quasi-judicial order. It was also held that Girdawar acted in violation of Section 138 of Transfer of Property Act, as he changed the entry on the basis of unregistered deed. The Patwari also recorded mutation in the Mutation Register notwithstanding the fact that lease was not registered.
“Tehsildar, Girdawar and Patwari, therefore, deserve punishment in accordance with Rule 30 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956”, the SAC had observed while making recommendations for terminating the services of Basant Ram, the then Tehsildar; Om Prakash the then Girdawar; Saleem Bandey, the then Patwari.
In respect of two Deputy Commissioners namely Ashok Parmar and Atal Duloo, who did not take any action for a period of two years, it was held by the SAC that they owe an explanation to the State Government and the same will be well advised to look into the matter and take necessary steps.
Against this order of State Accountability Commission, several petitions were filed.
After hearing Senior Advocates D C Raina, P N Raina, Advocates Rahul Pant, Adarsh Sharma, Manik Mahey and J A Hamal for the petitioners whereas Senior Advocate K S Johal with Advocate RS Jamwal for the complainant and Advocate Parnav Kohli for the SAC, DB observed, “order of attestation of mutation dated 14.05.2002 was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.02.2002 and on a revision being preferred before the J&K Special Tribunal, the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar for further enquiry on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the complainant”.
“Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur on the basis of the report dated 04.02.2003 had directed the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) to put up the draft charge-sheet against the delinquent officials and, therefore, the finding of the Commission that no action was taken by the Deputy Commissioners is perverse”, the DB said, adding “the Commission has failed to appreciate the expression ‘allegations’ as used in Section 2(3) of the Act in its proper perspective”.
“The Commission has also failed to take into account the fact that Section 32 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act has an over-riding effect on the provisions of Sections 107 and 138 of the J&K Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the finding recorded that the perpetual lease deed was not a registered document and same could not be relied upon by the then Tehsildar for invoking Section 28-A of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act is perverse. In any case, some erroneous interpretation of provisions of law could not have brought the action of the delinquent officials within the purview of the expression ‘allegations’ as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act”, the DB further said, adding “moreover, there is no allegation of corruption, favourtism, nepotism or lack of integrity in the complaint and neither any corrupt motive has been attributed to the delinquent officials in the complaint”.
With these observations, Division Bench allowed the petition and quashed the report of State Accountability Commission dated 30.05.2008.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel