Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 247 (JHR)

Md. Afroz Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-14

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
Order : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the vigilance. 2. 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 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act including order dated 25.02.2010 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner. 3. 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 Cooperative 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 Circle Officer Naresh Kumar as well as Jagnarain Singh 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 Co-operative Society as according to him, the purpose for which the land is sought to be transferred to Cooperative 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. 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 Cooperative Society for the purpose of building/houses, can be deemed to be a reasonable cause.” 4. 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 Cooperative Society of having land for the purpose of constructing building. 5. 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 petitioner, vide its letter no. 150(ii) dated 30.1.1991 whereby valuation of the land was assessed as Rs.5000/-per decimal. On the basis of the said report, an order was passed by the then Deputy Commissioner, under Section 49 of the CNT Act giving permission for transfer of the land. 6. 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.5000/-per decimal instead of Rs.4000/-per decimal which had been valued by the Circle Officer 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 Cooperative 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. 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. 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.6000/-per decimal. However, before the order was confirmed by the Sate 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 Jagnarain Singh 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 Cooperative 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 Cooperative 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. Further it was reported that after the permission was granted, the land was transferred to the State Co-operative Society who sold the land to different persons against whose name recommendation was made by this petitioner being Circle Inspector to mutate the land in their names. 8. On the basis of such enquiry report, Vigilance P.S. Case no.29 of 2000 was instituted on 13.11.2000 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 109, 201 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. 8. On the basis of such enquiry report, Vigilance P.S. Case no.29 of 2000 was instituted on 13.11.2000 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 109, 201 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. After bifurcation of the State, the Vigilance Bureau Ranchi took up the matter for investigation and ultimately charge sheet was submitted on 19.11.2007. 10. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the then Deputy Commissioner, who had granted permission on the basis of the report submitted by the Circle Officer, when moved to this Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, this Court, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, quashed the entire criminal proceeding, after holding that no offence as alleged, is made out against the then Deputy Commissioner, vide judgment dated 24.02.2010 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.403 of 2009. 11. The case of the then Circle Officer has also been quashed. 12. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that case of this petitioner stands on different footing than that of the case of Deputy Commissioner and Circle Officer as the land had been transferred to the Co-operative Society for constructing building but instead of constructing building, Co-operative Society sold the land to different persons. In spite of that the petitioner made recommendation for mutating the name of the transferees. 13. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting the allegation to be true, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence either of forgery or cheating or committing offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act in absence of any allegation constituting offence either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 14. It be stated that case of the Deputy Commissioner, who had granted permission to the land holders to transfer the land in favour of Co-operative Society has been quashed and that apart, the case of the then Circle Officer who had submitted report relating to valuation and had made recommendation for granting permission has already been quashed taking into account that the act of those persons never constitute any offence either of forgery or cheating. 15. Similar is the case with this petitioner. 15. Similar is the case with this petitioner. The act of the petitioner making recommendation does not constitute offence either of forgery or cheating and also the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, for the same reason which had been assigned in a case of Sudhir Kumar Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand through Vigilance, Ranchi [W.P.(Cr.) No.403 of 2009] and Naresh Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand through Vigilance (Cr.M.P.No.1229 of 2013), entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. case no.29 of 2000 including the order dated 25.02.02010 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 16. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.