Chattisgarh High Court
Sharad Kumar Tandon vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2022
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 4710 of 2016
Sharad Kumar Tandon S/o Late Pundas Tandon, Aged
about 35 years, R/o Ekta Nagar, Street No. 3, G
41, P.S. Gudhiyari, Gudhiyari, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Commissioner, Land Records, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Ishan Verma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 16/02/2022
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 18/09/2015 (Annexure P/5) by which the Collector, Land Records, Raipur has revoked petitioner's order of appointment on the post of Patwari (Trainee) with immediate effect. 2
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop : 2.1. The Commissioner, Land Records, Raipur issued an advertisement on 10/01/2014 inviting applications for recruitment/appointment on the post of Patwari in Raipur District clearly stipulating that the post of Patwari, being a district level post, the candidate applying for the said post must be a resident of the same district (Raipur).
2.2. The petitioner obtained domicile certificate of Raipur from the Court of Tahsildar, Raipur in a duly constituted Revenue case bearing No. 815/ब121 on 12/02/2014 (Annexure P/3) and applied for the said post and he was ultimately appointed by order dated 23/08/2014 (Annexure P/2).
2.3. Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint made by one Mahant Pathak and one Omprakash Pathak stating that petitioner is not the original resident of District Raipur rather he is the resident of District Durg and he has wrongly obtained the domicile certificate, an enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar, Raipur and certified by OIC, land records wherein it was found that 3 the domicile certificate dated 12/02/2014 has been issued in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the applicable Circular dated 17/06/2003 issued by the State Government, as such, it is absolutely in accordance with law. The matter was placed along with the report before the Subdivisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur.
2.4. The complainants also reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police and he, after conducting an enquiry, also held that the domicile certificate issued to the petitioner is absolutely in accordance with rules reserving liberty in favour of the complainants to question that order in an appeal, etc. in accordance with law.
2.5. Thereafter, by conducting an enquiry, petitioner's appointment order has been revoked by the Collector vide order dated 18/09/2015 (Annexure P/5) on the ground that he is not a resident of Raipur and he has wrongly obtained the domicile certificate by giving false information against which this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner stating inter alia that since his domicile certificate dated 4 12/02/2014 (Annexure P/3) is held to be legal and it has not been cancelled till date, his appointment order could not have been revoked by the Collector. Even the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, Raipur as well as by the Superintendent of Police have already been closed finding that petitioner's domicile certificate has been issued in accordance with the rules, as such, the impugned order (Annexure P/5) is liable to be set aside.
3. Return has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia that the impugned order of revocation of petitioner's appointment passed by the Collector is absolutely in accordance with law and petitioner has obtained domicile certificate by giving false information and since he is not the original resident of Raipur District and is actually the resident of Durg District, therefore, the impugned order, as it stands today, is liable to be maintained.
4. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner opposing the averment made by the respondents in their reply.
5. Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that petitioner's 5 domicile certificate dated 12/02/2014 (Annexure P/3) is still valid and operating as two fold enquiry has been conducted, one at the instance of the Collector and other by the Superintendent of Police and both of them have been closed clearly holding that petitioner's domicile certificate has been issued in accordance with the rules and the Circular issued by the State Government. He would further submit that even though the Collector, who has passed the impugned order, is a senior revenue Officer than the Tahsildar, who has issued petitioner's domicile certificate, but the Collector does not have the jurisdiction to supersede the domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar, though he is senior in hierarchy. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18/09/2015 (Annexure P/5) holding that petitioner is the resident of District Durg superseding the domicile certificate (Annexure P/3) of the petitioner in which he has been certified to be the resident of Raipur and revoking the order of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Patwari (Trainee) is liable to be set aside.
6
6. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and submit that domicile certificate has been obtained by the petitioner by giving false information in the application form whereas the impugned order would clearly show that he is actually the resident of District Durg and as per the advertisement issued for the post of Patwari (Trainee), he would be required to be the resident of District Raipur for being appointed on the post of Patwari, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
8. In an advertisement issued for recruitment/appointment on the post of Patwari (Trainee) by the Commissioner, Land Records, Raipur, it has clearly been incorporated that the candidate must be the resident of Raipur District. In order to submit his application, petitioner applied for grant of domicile certificate in the Court of Tahsildar in a duly constituted revenue case being 815/ब121 and on 7 12/02/2014 (Annexure P/3) he was granted the domicile certificate by the Tahsildar certifying that he is a resident of District Raipur.
9. The validity of petitioner's domicile certificate (Annexure P/3) was questioned by one Mahant Pathak and one Omprakash Pathak which was duly enquired into by the OIC, Land Records through the Tahsildar and ultimately, the Subdivisional Officer accepted the report and forwarded it to the Collector holding that petitioner's domicile certificate has been issued strictly in accordance with law in view of the Circular dated 17/06/2003 issued by the State Government which governs issuance of domicile certificate. Similarly, a simultaneous complaint was also made to the Superintendent of Police who also accepted the report of D.S.P. and held that petitioner's domicile certificate has been issued in accordance with law and the complainants are at liberty to prefer an appeal in accordance with law.
10. As such, it has been established that petitioner's domicile certificate has been found to be valid and legal and it has been issued in accordance with the rules and circular issued by 8 the State Government as held by the Revenue Officers as well as by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur. Apart from that, it is also not the case of the respondents that petitioner's domicile certificate has been revoked by the competent authority, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, once the domicile certificate granted by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner has not been revoked/cancelled and it was in existence on the date of passing of the impugned order, the Collector, Land Records, by conducting enquiry in a disciplinary proceeding, cannot reach to the conclusion that petitioner is not a resident of Raipur and he has obtained the domicile certificate by furnishing incorrect or untrue information as the complaints made against the petitioner have already been enquired into and no substance has been found therein by the State authorities. The Collector and the Tahsildar, both are revenue Officers within the meaning of Section 11 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter, "the Code"). Collector is a revenue Officer appointed by the State Government under Section 16 of the Code whereas a Tahsildar 9 is appointed under Section 19 of the Code. Though the Collector is a higher revenue Officer than the Tahsildar, yet the domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in a duly constituted revenue proceeding exercising quasi judicial/quasi statutory power, it can neither be set aside/revoked by the Collector in collateral proceeding including departmental proceedings nor it can be impliedly be set aside in Collateral proceeding, the said certificate is binding on Collector till it is set aside/revoked. Tahsildar has the jurisdiction to grant domicile certificate and until and unless, the domicile certificate so issued is set aside in a duly constituted revenue proceeding, it would remain in operation. In absence of revocation of the order granting domicile certificate to the petitioner, the Collector could not have come to a different conclusion in the department proceeding that petitioner is originally a resident of Durg and not the resident of Raipur as it would amount to superseding the domicile certificate without its cancellation, revocation or setting aside by the competent authority, particularly when the 10 validity and correctness of domicile certificate was enquired into specifically on a complaint so made and it was found to have been issued in accordance with Governmental Circulars.
11. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18/09/2015 (Annexure P/5) revoking petitioner's appointment on the post of Patwari (Trainee) is hereby quashed. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all service benefits except backwages. The question of backwages will be considered by the competent authority if a representation is made by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet 11 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4710 of 2016 Petitioner Sharad Kumar Tandon Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and Others (English) The domicile certificate issued by Tahsildar in a duly constituted revenue proceeding is binding on Collector in a disciplinary /collateral proceeding.
(Hindi) ककसस अननशशसननक / ससपपरररर क कशररवशहस मम तहससलदशर दशरश, नवनधनवत रशजसव पककरश कश पशलन कर जशरस ककरश गरश ननवशस पमशण पत कललकटर पर बबधनकशरस हहगश |