Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1524 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-10-05

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER 1. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2000 registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 469, 471; 477A, 109, 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The facts leading to this case are that in the year 1987, one R.M. Tigga and others being occupancy raiyats of the land filed an application under Section 49(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for according permission to them to transfer the lands, bearing plot nos. 636, 637 and 638 appertaining to khata no. 102, measuring an area of 71 acres situated at Mauza-Hinoo to Mahavir Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Dhurwa, Ranchi, a registered Cooperative Society. On the said application, a case was registered as Land Permission Case No.9 of 1987-88. Similarly, Hardugan Munda and 9 others also filed an application for according permission to transfer the lands, bearing plot nos. 635, 647 and 650, appertaining to, khata no. 57 and also plot no. 648, appertaining to khata no. 174, measuring total area 1.67 acres to the said Co-operative Society. On that application, Land Permission Case No. 10 of 1987-88 was registered. On filing of such application a report was called for from the concerned Circle Officer with respect to valuation and utility of the land. Pursuant to that, a report was submitted by the concerned C.O. (not the petitioner) putting therein the valuation of the land with a recommendation for according permission to transfer the land under Section 49 of the Act, However, the then. D.C., Ranchi refused to grant permission to transfer the aforesaid lands to the Cooperative Society as according to him, the purpose for which the land is sought to be transferred to Co-operative Society for constructing building, cannot be said to be reasonable and sufficient purpose. However, the said order was challenged before the Commissioner, Ranchi by way of appeal being Misc. Revenue Appeal No. 307 of 1987. While hearing the said appeal, the following question was formulated:- "whether or not the sale of the land to the Housing Co-operative Society for the purpose of building/houses, can be deemed to be a reasonable cause." 3. However, the said order was challenged before the Commissioner, Ranchi by way of appeal being Misc. Revenue Appeal No. 307 of 1987. While hearing the said appeal, the following question was formulated:- "whether or not the sale of the land to the Housing Co-operative Society for the purpose of building/houses, can be deemed to be a reasonable cause." 3. While dealing with the issue, learned Commissioner did observe that though certain purposes have been specified in the Act under which permission can be granted for transfer but there could be other purposes also not mentioned in the Act under which Deputy Commissioner can grant permission provided he finds the purpose to be reasonable and sufficient purposes. Therefore, the case was remanded, vide its order dated 14.12.1987 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to consider the case afresh as to whether or not construction of the houses/building is a reasonable activity taking into account that in the past there have been several instances of according permission for transferring the land to the Co-operative Societies for the construction of the building and that in the area, several colonies have come up and also the fact that whether sufficient land would be left with the transferors and that the rate negotiated is reasonable and also to ensure genuineness of the claim of the Co-operative Society of having land for the purpose' of constructing building, Meanwhile, raiyats filed an application for having fresh report regarding valuation of the land as the matter had remained pending for last three years and during three years, valuation of the land had been escalated. On such application a fresh report was called for which was submitted by the then Circle Officer, Naresh Kumar, vide its letter no. 150(ii) dated 30.1.1991 whereby valuation of the land was assessed as Rs. 5,000/- per decimal. 4. It further appears that raiyats also filed an application stating therein that the lands which are being sought to be transferred are not cultivable, rather it is a 'tand' land and as such, they are not getting benefit out of it and hence, they want to dispose it of so that money could be utilized for constructing/repairing of their houses. It further appears that raiyats also filed an application stating therein that the lands which are being sought to be transferred are not cultivable, rather it is a 'tand' land and as such, they are not getting benefit out of it and hence, they want to dispose it of so that money could be utilized for constructing/repairing of their houses. Thereupon matter was taken up for hearing by the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who vide its order dated 2.2.1992 granted permission to the raiyats to transfer the land to the said Co-operative Society taking into account the fact that the land being 'tand' land is 'not cultivable and even after transfer of the land to the registered Co-operative Society, the raiyats would be left with the adequate agricultural land and that raiyats have also taken a considerable amount as an advance and that earlier permission has been granted in number of cases where lands were sought to be transferred to the Cooperative Society for the purpose of constructing building. On such fact, the D.C., Ranchi on finding that such transfer would be for reasonable and sufficient purposes granted permission to transfer the land subject to condition that the land would be sold at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per decimal instead of Rs. 4,000/- per decimal which had been valued by the C.O. (not the petitioner) and that transferor would be using the land only for the purpose for which permission has been given and that none of the members of the Co-operative Society will be having more than 7 decimals of the land and that if the building is not constructed over the land within three years, raiyats would be entitled to have possession back of those lands and last not the least, that the payment be made by having NSS in the name of the raiyats and cash be deposited in the account of the raiyats. 5. Subsequently, that order was challenged by some of the aggrieved persons before the State Government in terms of the provision as contained in Section 49(5) of the Act. 5. Subsequently, that order was challenged by some of the aggrieved persons before the State Government in terms of the provision as contained in Section 49(5) of the Act. After hearing, the Presiding Officer did not find fault with the order of the Deputy Commissioner granting permission as according to him; the order has been passed after taking into consideration several factors mentioned in the order and as such, it was confirmed by holding that transfer for which permission was accorded was for reasonable and sufficient purpose. Therefore, the Presiding Officer did not find it fit to interfere with the order. However, rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner for sale of the land was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per decimal. 6. However, before the order was confirmed by the State Government, Vigilance Bureau, Bihar on getting some complaints regarding illegal transfer of the land belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, constituted a committee for holding enquiry over the matter relating to illegal transfer. The complaint relating to permission granted by the petitioner was enquired into by the then Dy. S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Patna who did find that earlier the permission for transfer of the land to Mahabir Housing Co-operative Society had been refused when the occupancy raiyats had sought permission. However, the order was set aside by the then Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner passing a fresh order after taking into consideration as to whether the purpose for which the land is sought to be transferred to the Co-operative Society would be reasonable and sufficient. That matter was not decided by the then Deputy Commissioners, who were posted at the relevant point of time but it is only Sudhir Prasad the then Deputy Commissioner, who accorded permission- to transfer the land, though no such permission could be granted for housing purposes in view of the bar put under Section 49 of the Act, still the then Deputy Commissioner having connived with others granted permission for transferring the land. 7. On the basis of such enquiry report, Patna Sadar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2000' was instituted on 13.11.2000 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 A, 109, 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1 Hd) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. Mr. 7. On the basis of such enquiry report, Patna Sadar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2000' was instituted on 13.11.2000 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 A, 109, 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1 Hd) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was posted at that time as C.O. has been made accused as he having permission being granted by the D.C., Ranchi, passed an order for mutating the name of the Co-operative Society against the vended land. On the basis of the report submitted by the Halqua Kramchari and the Circle Inspector as he was duty bound to do so and thereby, the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever. 9. It was further pointed out that the then D.C. who had granted permission had earlier moved to this Court when he was made accused for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding which was quashed vide order dated 24.2.2010, passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 403 of 2009. 10. Since, the case of Sudhir Prasad @ Sudhir Kumar Prasad has been quashed, the entire criminal proceeding becomes liable to be quashed so far this petitioner is concerned as the case of the petitioner stands on better footing. Moreover the petitioner by passing an order for mutation in favour of the Co-operative Society cannot be said to have committed any offence either under Sections 467, 468, 471, 477 as those offences never get attracted, keeping in view the definition given of the forgery under Section 464 of the LP.C. and this matter has been dealt with, in detail in a case of Sudhir Prasad @ Sudhir Kumar Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand through Vigilance, Ranchi [W.P.(Cr.) No. 403 of 2009]. 11. I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has passed order for mutation, pursuant to the order passed by the D.C. granting' permission for sale of the land, in question, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever either under Sections 467, 468 or 477 of the LP.C. as the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence of forgery as defined under Section 464 of the I.P.C. 12. Further it be recorded that it is beyond any comprehension as to how an offence under Section 419 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner when there is no such element for constituting offence under Section 419 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code is there. 13. Similarly, I do not find any offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption. Act being attracted as the petitioner has never been alleged that he by adopting corrupt practices or illegal means for having pecuniary advantage/valuable things for himself or for any other purpose passed order for mutation. 14. Thus, the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2000, registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 109, 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of- the P.C. Act, is hereby, quashed so far the petitioner is concerned. 15. In the result, this application stands allowed.