news details |
|
|
| CBI court orders reinvestigation in case against ex-MLA, others | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 3: In a much publicized case in which CBI produced challan against Kanta Andotra, former MLA and then Chairperson of Kathua based educational trust and Ravinder Singh, the then Patwari Muthi Hardo for illegal possession and encroachment of land, Special Judge CBI Court R K wattal has directed reinvestigation in the case.
The court has granted four month time therefore merits to be granted for re-investigation under the supervision of SP Central Bureau of Investigation concerned.
This case was registered on the complaint of CBI officer Vikas Renot Sub Inspector ACB Jammu on the basis of the preliminary enquiry done by him on some source information to the effect that a huge land of J&K Government Public/Forest Department in Kathua district has been encroached upon by some unscrupulous elements in violation of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and in connivance with Revenue officers and Forest officers. It was alleged in the complaint that Revenue officials of Kathua entered into criminal conspiracy with R B Educational Trust Kathua allowing the said trust to retain the land beyond 100 kanals ceiling limit provided under Agrarian Reforms Act and a case under section 120-B r/w 218, 409 RPC and section 5(2) r/w 5 (1) (c) of J&K P.C.Act 2006 came to be registered under FIR No. RC0042020A0005 against the said Trust through its Chairperson accused No.1, Ajay Singh the then DC Kathua, Avtar Singh the then Tehsildar Marheen, Des Raj the then Naib Tehsildar Chhan Arorian Tehsil Marheen, Ram Paul the then Girdwar, Sudesh Kumar the then Patwari and other unknown persons.
It was alleged in the FIR that the Kanta Adnotra has acquired land in excess of the ceiling limit of 100 standard Kanals in violation of section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and accused No.1 got the wrong calculation of land done which was held by the said Trust as 152 Kanals 1 Marla and 110 Kanlas and 18 Marlas by entering into conspiracy with other Revenue officials and officers and a false affidavit was also sworn before the High Court to mislead the court and save the trust and to give benefit to the trust allowing it to retain excess land.
After the registration of the case investigation was done, the evidence was collected the enquiry report which was given by the enquiry committee after the order of enquiry was passed ,was also collected and it was found that supplementary trust deed dated 16.04.2008 and 09.12.2017 were registered with family members of accused No.1 as its members.
It was further revealed during investigation that the said trust and the family members of husband of accused No.1 had got land transferred in his favour on his name and through attorney comprising of three sale deeds dated 08.05.2006 for total 79 Kanals 01 Marla, gift deed executed on 08.05.2006, 25.10.2007 and 26.10.2007 with respect to 79 Kanals 01 Marlas, 12 Kanals 02 Marlas, 40 Kanals 09 Marlas total 131 Kanals 11 Marlas, sale deeds dated 06.03.2010, 13.05.2010, 05.01.2011, 07.01.2011, 07.01.2011, for 48 Kanals 06 Marlas , 35 Kanals through the husband of accused No.1 as attorney Sale deed dated 15.09.2017 in favour of Divya Suraj Partap Singh whereby total land of 328 Kanals 19 Marlas was acquired by R.B Education Trust in violation of section 14 of Agrarian Reform Act providing ceiling limit of 100 kanals.
The investigation further revealed the then Patwari Ravinder Singh accused No.2 in conspiracy and in pursuance of the conspiracy with accused No. 1 by abusing his official position without mentioning the details facilitated the acquisition of land by accused in favour of R B Trust with dishonest intention and falsely mentioning that there was no effect on the provisions of law under the aforesaid Acts. The accused No.2 also wrongly facilitated the attestation of mutation in violation of Agrarian Reforms Act misusing his official position knowingly on incorrect information provided by him. Three Fards were issued by him in criminal conspiracy with accused No.1 i.e how the case was registered.
The investigation was conducted and the offences aforementioned were found to have been committed by the accused on the basis of investigation conducted by the CBI officials. It was further revealed that since a wrong affidavit has been filed before the High Court so appropriate proceedings for seeking sanction for prosecution of the accused were also instituted for action under 195 CrPC.
Special Judge CBI RK wattal after hearing both the sides observed that in absence of any order under section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act it cannot be said that the person who is guilty of holding the land in excess of the ceiling area has committed the offence under ordinary penal or special provisions. Moreover, a distinction has to be made between the voluntary acquisition of land and the involuntary occupation of the same as regards the unit to fix the liability under law for the trust or its functionaries. In the instant case as per the letter dated 05.03.2013 under No. DCK/ARA/2012-13/503-04 issued by Deputy Commissioner Kathua notice has been issued to the accused as Chairperson of the trust on the direction of PIL of 19/2011 after a report was sought from the Tehsildar Hiranagar and this notice was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court on the ground of competency and jurisdiction of DC Kathua who accepted the objections where after the case was transferred to ACR Kathua for passing of fresh order.
It has been given to understand that no order conclusively and finally has been passed by ACR Kathua or the Government under the Act so as to attract the Penalty Provisions.
The Court further observed that suppose in a case the attesting authority on the report of an officer competent under section 18 of Agrarian Reforms Act attests the mutation dehors the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act or rules made thereunder or in defiance of fundamentals of judicial procedure in which the action is initiated on the act done by patwari verified by Girdawar in violation of standing order 23 A the provisions governing attestation of mutations or the land is mutated in violation of the conditions of section 7,8 or 12 of the Act outraging the provisions of law.
Will the officers responsible for the same be booked under PC Act or they will face action under departmental rules and illegality in such mutations shall entail their cancellation or vesting of land in violation of section 7,8,12,13, 28A in state.
These are the points of consideration which call for an appropriate answer after a thorough probe. It has to be ascertained as to whether the reporting or attestation has been done with ulterior motives against the monetary consideration or bungling or illegal act done by the accused working concurrently for same period in their respective field.
In such a case also the question arises whether an action directing passing of an order and consequent action for escheating the land in favour of state will be resorted to or the case will be closed by booking the accused under section 5(d) PC Act letting him to appropriate the whole of the land exceeding the ceiling limit in gross violation of Agrarian Reforms Act which is required to be allotted to landless peasantry in the order envisaged under Agrarian Reforms Act by dispensing with the requirement of law of order required to be passed in this behalf. Such a violation demands snatching excess land in excess of ceiling limit from the land holder and allotting the same to the rightful persons under Section 13 /14/Ag ref . Act after giving the person / owner concerned the reasonable opportunity of being heard as to the option of choosing or adopting which land and divesting him of the excess of which land.
The Court observed that the matter requires further probe at par with the investigation which has already been ordered against the officers who have allegedly filed false affidavit before the High Court and also till the final decision is made by the Collector the competent officer having jurisdiction to pass order under section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1978.
Until that final order is passed the statements of the witnesses recorded or the recommendatory reports of revenue committees and agrarian agencies concerned the material which are short of finality of the order formally declaring the accused liable for violation of section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act and which are yet to fructify in final order of collector ACR the authority competent under law to pass such order ,will legally be deemed to have been not warranting conviction ,a criteria for limited purpose of shifting the evidence to proceed against the accused which can be considered and looked into on completion of further investigation/ enquiry.
This aspect of the case is shown to have been either overlooked or completely ignored warranting re-investigation on all the aspects as stated above and granted four month time for re-investigation under the supervision of SP CBI concerned. The same is ordered accordingly. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
