Jharkhand High Court
Hema Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 288 of 2023
Hema Prasad, aged about 45 years, W/o- Shri
Ravishankar Prasad, presently posted as Dist. Land
Acquisition Officer, Giridih, R/o- Giridih P.O & P.S.-
Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand).
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reform and
Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand,
having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, and Vigilance
Department (Vigilance), Government of Jharkhand,
having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Government of Jharkhand, P.O.- GPO, P.S.
Sadar, District-Ranchi.
5. Superintendent of Police, Jamtara, PO. GPO, PS-
Kotwali, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate.
: Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Deepankar, A.C. to G.A.-III.
------
10/ 03.09.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings, arising out of Mihijam P.S. Case No. 47 of 2016
corresponding to G.R. No. 535 of 2016, registered for the offences
under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Jamtara. Further prayer is
made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with
ACB Dumka P.S. Case No. 02 of 2023.
3. The FIR was lodged by the informant namely Sukhdeo Ray,
against several persons including the present petitioner. The
complainant is resident of JB Raiyat of Mouza Kangoi, PS.- Mihijam,
Dist.- Jamtara and complainant is social worker. The accused Nirmal
Mistri and Ajit Singh @ Bappi Singh both of village- Kangoi, P.S.-
Mihijam have formed a group for illegal transfer of Jamabandi land by
disclosing the saleable land by means of forged documents since some
time past in collusion with the other accused persons 3,4,5,6 who are
the Government Officers and they have blindly given reports in favour
of the said land Mafiyas without consultation of the Khatiyan or record
of rights.
In this connection it is alleged that AKJ No.24 of Mouza
Butberia has been recorded in the name of Ram Majee and others
during the last survey settlement having a total area of 38.12 acres
in the Khatian as Mokrari Raiyat which come under the category
of Jamabandi land as per Gantzers report published in the year
1932 to 1935 as Para 51. The Accused No.1 Nirmal Mistri
obtained a fake deed of Power of Attorney from District Sub
Registration office Jamtara in his favour to transfer the said entire
land of AKJ No. 24 of Mouza Butberia and said Power of
Attorney being registered illegally by registered office Jamtara
which has been registered as Deed no.6 in Book which
incorporated in Book No.1, Vol. No. IV. Page 137 to 164 and
another Deed being No.5 of the year 2014 which incorporated in
Book IV Vol. I Page 27 to 54 and by the help of said forged power
of Attorney the accused Nirmal Mistri and Ajit Singh @ Bappa
Singh contract with different persons for selling of different
parties of land out of Khatian No.24 by misrepresenting the self as
the owner of said land and the Government Officer Accused No. 3
to 6 have illegally passed in collusion with Accused No.3,4,5,6
when the matter are suggest of the knowledge of the Press and in
city front of Dainik Bhaskar on 09.02.16 a detail report was
expressed by the Press and on the basis of the said report of
Newspaper the Officers are making enquiry and found that by
illegal and fraudulent means the above land out of Khatian no.24
of Mouza Butberia have been transferred by Nirmal Mistri and he
has earned crores of rupees by illegally transferring the land by
way of Sale Deed.
Thereafter C.O. Jamtara submitted another report to SDO
Jamtara for eviction of these persons from the said land as because
the land is not transferable in nature and C.O. has submitted his
report vide Letter No.20, dt. 10.03.16 that 310 persons have
illegally obtained the land by virtue of forged passed the said land
as saleable in nature and in this way entire land of jote No. 24 of
Mouza Butberia was transferred in the name of different persons
from time to time and a list of said transferred is annexed herewith
in this complaint Petition as Annexure 1. The petitioner obtained
c/copy of the sale Deed being No. 156 dt.12.3.2014 from Sub
Registry Office and found that Plot No. 89/D. 84/C, 87/A of
Mouza Butheria appt. to Khatian No. 24 was sold in favour of
accused Sumant Kumar by illegal means and accused Deshbandhu
Layek Mukesh Kumar has signed in said Deed as witness.
When the matter brought to knowledge of complainant and
other person they have been informed the matter to D.C. Jamtara,
Hon'ble Commissioner Dumka, SDO Jamtara and other Higher
Officers with a request to make an enquire regarding that matter as
huge quantity of land illegally registered at Jamtara Sub-Registry
Office Power of Attorney and submitted a list of persons who have
obtained the land by way of illegal sale and prayed for eviction of
the persons and order by learned SDO by order dt.10.3.16 started
R.E. Case No.20/15-16 against the said 310 persons which is
pending for hearing before the Court of SDO Jamatara. That SDO
proceeding is submitted by complainant as Annexure II.
From earlier report and present report submitted in R.E.
Case no.20/15-16 apparently show the officer are involved in this
case and they have with some malafide intention pass the Sale
Deed of 310 persons for transferred of purely Jamabandi land for
which they have been gained for some amount from Nirmal Mistri
and Ajit Singh which subject be verified and accused person may
prosecuted under the law. Accused No. 1 and 2 has produced the
fraud General Power of Attorney before the Sub Registry Officer,
Jamara without verification the Accused No. 3,4,5 and 6 have
passed the illegal Deed of Sale for their personal benefit after
keeping the law of the District. The complainant is here with filing
forged Deed of Sale being No. 156 dt.12.3.2014, as Annexure-III.
The complainant is filing an application before the Mahamahim
Rajyapal of Jharkhand and other official for illegal transfer the JB
land which is filed herewith as Annexure IV. As such, the accused
persons have committed an offence us 420,406,409,468, 471,120-
B IPC and they may be put to trial.
4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by letter dated
01.07.2006, on the post of CO at Hiranpur, in the District of Pakur after
duly qualifying and on getting selected in the State Public Service
Examinations. He submits that the petitioner was posted as District
Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih at the time of filing of this petition.
He further submits that when she was serving as Circle Officer,
Jamtara, and it was during her tenure i.e. on 09.12.2013, that one
application was preferred by one Shesh Nath Manjhi S/o Dharni Dhar
Manjhi of Butberia village before the learned District Sub-Registrar-
cum- L.R.D.C., Jamtara seeking permission to transfer the landed
property at Mouza Butberia, Khatiyan-24, Survey Settlement in the
name of Ram Manjhi Digar, in the district of Jamtara, which is
contained in Annexure-3. He then submits that pursuant to the said
complaint, the District Sub-Registrar-cum- L.R.D.C., Jamtara has
requested to Circle Officer, who is the petitioner to enquire and disclose
as to whether the land is transferable and registerable or not and the
said communication was made vide Sub-Registrar-cum-LR.D.C's office
letter dated 12.12.2013 addressed to the present petitioner, which is
contained in Annxure-4.
5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, being the Circle
Officer, has called upon the Revenue Karamchari under her to submit a
detailed inquiry report in relation to the land in question and the said
Revenue Karamchari submitted his report in relation to Khata No.24
that the land is transferable, but at the same time, he crossed the
registrable part and put his signature. He further disclosed that the said
land is 'Mokarari Satwa', and was recorded in the name of Mokrari
Raiyat Ram Manjhi Digar in the survey settlement. The report was
submitted by the Revenue Karamchari on 21.12.2013 and the said
report was duly inspected by Circle Inspector and was forwarded to the
present petitioner i.e. Circle Officer, Jamtara on 25.12.2013. He submits
that on the basis of the above report, the Circle Officer, Jamtara replied
to the District Sub-Registrar-cum-L.R.D.C., in reference to the query
which was made on 12.12.2013, about the nature of land of Khatiyan
24, Mouza Butberia, District- Jamtara. He further submits that the
petitioner specifically mentioned that she has gone through the
Register- II records, and found mutation case no. 59/1990-91, wherein
the said land was recorded in the name of one Ms. Anjani Fero Alloy. In
that, it was also disclosed that in the year 2004, Deputy Commissioner
had directed that 25% of the surcharge of land revenue rent shall be
deposited as factory surcharge. In the said report, the petitioner has
further recorded that the land though is transferable, but she has
particularly crossed any option of the land being registerable and has
certified it, contained in Annexure-6 and 6/1. He submits that the
District Sub-Registrar-cum- L.R.D.C. did not act upon the advice and
the information provided by the present petitioner, rather the authority
moved on the basis of what she could understand from the record on his
independent evaluation of records and it was registered in the name of
the person, on whose instance all these exercises have been done and
sale deed was executed on 08.01.2014, contained in Annexure-7. He
submits that the petitioner was communicated by letter dated
15.12.2015, under the signature of Under Secretary to the Land
Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, disclosing that the
letter dated 02.11.2015 has been received from Sukhdeo Roy, Raj
Kumar Roy and others of village Mahijam Butberiya, in relation to the
sale and purchase of Mukrari Raiyati Land and for that the inquiry was
initiated in the first hand, as a result of the complaint made by the some
private individuals. He further submits that on 01.02.2016, on the
recommendation of Additional Collector, Jamtara, vide his letter dated
15.12.2015, one preliminary show cause was served upon the present
petitioner, under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, which
is contained in Annexure-9 and the petitioner has duly replied to the
said preliminary show cause on 01.02.2016, however, the authorities
were not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and the
petitioner has been served with 'Prapatra Ka' mentioning the
allegations against the petitioner for the period she served as Circle
Officer, Jamtara, in relation to the information and report submitted by
her to the District Sub-Registrar- cum-L.R.D.C., vide her letter dated
08.01.2014, wherein she had disclosed the nature of land to be 'Mokrari'
and at the same time had said that the land is transferable, but not
registerable. He further submits that the petitioner has objected the said
'Prapatra Ka' before the Secretary Department of Personal,
Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa and Secretary of Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms and Registration, Government of
Jharkhand, by way of filing objection petition.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the said objections
were sent to Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara for enquiry and necessary
action. Pursuant thereto the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara has been
pleased to constitute a committee, consisting of three members
consisting of Project Director ITDA, Jamtara, SDO, Jamtara and
Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamtara, wherein the Deputy
Development Commissioner was the Chairman of the said committee to
submit a report on the aforementioned incident and allegations made
against the present petitioner. The constituted committee inspected the
allegations made out against the present petitioner, as also the reply
submitted by her on 11.06.2016 and submitted a report on 20.10.2016.
He submits that in the report submitted by the Three Men Committee, it
was intimated to the Deputy Commissioner that on the wrong intention,
the said report was not provided by the petitioner and the said report
has been accepted by the Deputy Commissioner. He further submits
that the said report was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department and the Deputy
Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand by the letter
dated 20.10.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner, which is contained in
Annexure-14. The acceptance of the Deputy Commissioner was placed
before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, who has
also accepted the same on 02.11.2017. He further submits that for the
same charge, a departmental proceeding was also initiated, wherein it
has been found that the said mistake was not intentional and it was only
error on duty and the integrity was said to be intact in the departmental
proceeding. However, the minor punishment of stoppage of two
increments with non-cumulative effect has been imposed. Pursuant to
that the said file has been placed before the Departmental Minister, who
happened to be the Chief Minister of the State, wherein the said
Departmental Minster has agreed to the findings. He submits that now
by the letter dated 14.12.2022, contained in Annexure-2, the ACB has
been requested to register the case against the petitioner and others and
now the ACB has already registered the case being ACB Dumka P.S.
Case No. 02 of 2023. He submits that on these backgrounds, the
registration of the further case by the ACB, that too after acceptance of
the report in favour of the petitioner, is an arbitrary action and will
amount to an abuse of the process of law and the petitioner will suffer
irreparable loss. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is
fully covered in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others"
reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.
7. Per contra, Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents-State does not dispute with regard to the admitted
position up to acceptance of the Hon'ble Departmental Minister,
however, he submits that it transpires that something has come further
and in view of that the ACB has registered the case against the
petitioner and others. In view of that, he submits that the entire criminal
proceedings may not be quashed, as some others including several
officials have been implicated in the case.
8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on
record and finds that the admittedly on the application of one Shesh
Nath Manjhi on 09.12.2023, the District Sub-Registrar-cum- L.R.D.C.,
Jamtara has requested the petitioner to enquire and report about the
nature of the land and pursuant to that the petitioner has entrusted the
Revenue Karamchari and the Circle Inspector to submit a report. The
report was submitted saying the land in question is not registerable,
however, it is transferable and the nature of the land was reported as
Mokarari and thereafter the District Sub-Registrar-cum- L.R.D.C. has
registered the sale deed showing the nature of land as Basauri. When
the petitioner was also show caused, the petitioner has filed the reply to
the show cause and the said objection was forwarded by the concerned
department to the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara to make an inquiry.
Pursuant to that, three men committee was constituted, headed by the
Deputy Development Commissioner and the inquiry report was
submitted contained in Annexure-13. In the said inquiry report of the
three men committee, it has come that with wrong intention, the report
was not made by the petitioner and the said report, the petitioner has
disclosed that the land in question is transferable, but not registerable.
The said report was placed before the Deputy Commissioner, which
was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, which is contained in
Annexure-14 and the said acceptance was placed before the Divisional
Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, who also accepted the same
by way of Annexure-15. It is an admitted position that in the
departmental proceeding, the finding is there against the petitioner only
to the effect that it is error on duty and it has been disclosed that the
integrity of the petitioner is intact. The said aspect has also been
considered by the higher authorities as well the departmental minister,
who was the Chief Minister at that time, contained in Annexure-22 and
departmental minister has approved the punishment of withholding of
two increments with non-cumulative effect and the integrity part was
also further considered in the said order and the departmental minister
has also accepted that it was an error on duty and that's why the minor
punishment was passed against the petitioner.
9. In these backgrounds, when on an elaborate inquiry,
department as well as Minister has found that the petitioner's integrity
was intact and there is only error on duty and further referring the
matter to the ACB and registration of the FIR, appears to be very harsh
so far as the petitioner is concerned. As such, to allow the proceeding to
continue against the petitioner will amount to an abuse of the process of
law, as in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner's integrity has
already been found intact and only error on duty was found and for that
minor punishment was imposed upon the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings, arising out of
Mihijam P.S. Case No. 47 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 535 of
2016, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468,
471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned
SDJM, Jamtara as well as ACB Dumka P.S. Case No. 02 of 2023,
registered pursuant to the further direction, so far as this petitioner is
concerned, are hereby, quashed.
11. It is made clear that this court has not interfered with the
entire criminal proceedings so far as other accused persons are
concerned and the inquiry will proceed in accordance with law.
12. This petition is allowed in the above terms and disposed of
as such.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[AFR]
