Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas Garg vs State Of Punjab on 21 December, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRM M-38345 of 2012 &
CRM M-38607 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: December 21, 2012
CRM M-38345 of 2012 (O&M)
Vikas Garg ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CRM M-38607 of 2012 (O&M)
Yashpal Aggarwal and another .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate,
for the petitioner (In CRM M-38345 of 2012)
Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, Advocate,
for the petitioners (In CRM M-38607 of 2012)
Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
By this common order, Crl. Misc. Petitions viz. CRM M- 38345 of 2012 and CRM M-38607 of 2012 are being disposed of as the CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 2 same arise out of FIR No. 23 dated 09.11.2012, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.
CRM M-38345 of 2012 by petitioner-Vikas Garg, IAS, Formerly Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Collector, Patiala and CRM M-38607 of 2012 by petitioners-Yashpal Aggarwal and Devinder Singh Sandhu have been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.23 dated 09.11.2012, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.
The contents of the FIR in question are reproduced as under:-
"The Government had directed the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala to hold an inquiry with regard to the sale deed in respect of Kothi No.9, situated Rambagh, Rajwaha Road, Patiala duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar, Patiala, vide No. 15901 and 15902 dated 14.10.2011, who in his inquiry report raised the suspicious finger towards the role of the then Patwari posted at Patiala, Kanungo, Naib Tehsildar, Deputy Commissioner and former Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and had written to the Government for getting conducted the inquiry from Vigilance Bureau for favour of thorough probe whereupon the vigilance inquiry no.1 dated 20.6.12 was registered against District Patiala's officers and officials of Revenue Department and others. Consequent upon CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 3 inquiry, it has been found that the owner of Khasra No. 104 was Kanwar Brijinder Singh, out of the said area, some part thereof was sold by Kanwar Brijinder Singh to Government of India (Department of Post & Telegraph) and to some other private persons. In the year 1958, after the death of Kanwar Brijinder Singh, the remaining property pertaining to Khasra No. 104 was transferred in the name of his son Kiraninder Singh and his daughters and out of the said khasra, Kiraninder Singh has sold the land time to time to various private persons. Now the land (5950 square yards) regarding which Kiraninder Singh had finalized a deal/agreement to sell with N.P. Singh, Yagpal Aggarwal and Devinder Singh Sandhu, was not of Kiraninder Singh rather the said area pertains to Khasra No. 103, which is government land and the said area was falling therein. From the demarcation done on 3.8.12, it has become clear that Kiraninder Singh has no vacant land in khasra no. 104. Thereafter, Kiraninder Singh with regard to sell the said property executed the General Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney in favour of Ravdeep Singh and Jaswant Singh, who were the persons of the vendee but th eland for sale being public land and due to presence of the government office therein; the registry of the said land could not be registered. On 14.2.11 Kiraninder Singh got the power of attorneys cancelled and the concerned were intimated. Shri Deepinder Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner while complying with the orders passed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, having passed the self contained order dated 22.3.11 observing the land in dispute a part of CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 4 Khasra No. 103 dismissed the claim of the vendee and refused to register their deeds. Jaspal Aggarwal etc. filed the revision petition in the court of Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioner, Patiala vide orders dated 13.4.2011 stayed the aforesaid orders dated 22.3.2011 of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. The vendee/GPA/SPA knowing well that the said land has been declared as public land vide orders dated 22.3.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and the appeal against the said orders was pending in the Court of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The ownership of the land is in dispute and they had sent the notices to Kiraninder Singh not to receive the payments of the cheques. Despite all of that, they having got registered the sale-deeds in their favour have usurped the public land. As and endeavour to get the sale-deeds registered, earlier they had submitted the deeds before Amardeep Singh Thinda, the then Tehsildar, Patiala but he refused to register the deeds. Immediately on Vikas Garg, IAS being posted as Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, the vendees started making efforts to get the sale-deeds registered. In the same series, on 07.10.2011, they submitted the sale-deeds of the aforeasid land before Naib Tehsildar Gurinder Singh Walia, who on 12.10.11 having prepared an official note regarding registration of the deed had sent the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. In this regard, Jasbir Singh, District Revenue Officer, Patiala having met Shri Vikas Garg, Deputy Commissioner, Patiala issued a letter dated 13.10.11 to Naib Tehsildar, Patiala/Jt. Sub CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 5 Registrar, Patiala with regard to registration of the sale- deeds. Naib Tehsildar, Shri Gurinder Singh Walia on 14.10.11 registered the deeds vide no. 15901 and 15902 and on 12.11.2011, the Naib Tehsildar with the collusion of Area Kanungo and the Patwari sanctioned the mutation. As such, the accused with their connivance under a conspiracy misappropriated the public land measuring 5950 square yards (market value worth Rs. 200-250 crores). By doing so, Sarv Shree N.P. Singh, Yaspal Aggarwal, Davinder Singh Sandhu, Ravdeep Singh, Jaswant Singh, Vikas Garg, IAS, Former Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, Rajbir Singh, Ex.D.R.O. Patiala, Gurinder Singh Walia, Naib Tehsildar, Patiala, Pritpal Singh, Kanungo and Suresh Kumar Patwari, Revenue Area, Patiala have committed an offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d) r.w. 13(2) P.C. Act 1988. Hence, the writing is being sent through Sr. Constable Mandeep Singh 1/17101RB to P.S. V.B. Patiala Range, Patiala for registration of case F.I.R against aforesaid accused under the aforesaid offence."
Heard.
Submissions in CRM M-38345 of 2012:
Sh. R S Cheema, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner -
Vikas Garg contended that the ownership of Khasra No. 104 in which Kothi No.9 Baradari Garden Patiala is situated, vests in private persons i.e. Kiraninder Singh etc. and that the ownership does not vest in the State of Punjab. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a reference to the mutation (Annexure P/3) whereby the said Kothi has been transferred to CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 6 Kanwar Brijinder Singh son of His Highness Sir Bhupinder Singh of Patiala on the basis of Government of Patiala and Pepsu State Union order dated 04.08.1950 (Annexure P/2). The said Kothi has been described as House No.9, Baradari Garden, Patiala, occupied by Kanwar Brijinder Singh along with buildings and structures etc. situated within its premises.
Learned counsel further made a reference to Jamabandi for the year 2006- 07 (Annexure P/8) to show that the total area of Khasra Nos. 101, 102 and 103 is 12 Bighas and 9 Biswas and out of it Khasra No. 103 is 05 Bigha and 13 Biswas. Ownership of these Khasra Nos vests in Government and possession is in the name of Transit Residence of the then Chief Justice.
Learned counsel has also made reference to the various demarcations and contended that without authentic demarcation identity of the khasra no cannot be established, so no offence is made out. Further contended that to ascertain in which khasra number Post Office, buildings of the Department of PWD and other Departments exist, can only be ascertained by way of proper demarcation otherwise the same cannot be identified. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that some of the vendees have already filed civl writ petition before this Court whereby they are seeking direction for proper demarcation of Khasra No. 103 along with dimensions. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner is not liable for the offence as he has passed no order and this was the stand of the petitioner before the Inquiring Authority. Learned counsel further contended that there is no reasonable and rationale material that may show that the land has been sold beyond the share prescribed in the revenue CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 7 record, otherwise also no loss has been suffered by the Government. The sales deeds are qua the land which is the ownership of Kiraninder Singh, as per revenue record. It is further submitted that various orders have been passed in civil writ petitions filed by some of the co-accused in this Court for demarcation of the land. In spite of that no correct demarcations have been carried out at the spot. Rather, in the report it is mentioned that demarcation cannot be made at the spot. The reference has been made to the demarcations carried out from the year 1979 till date. Submissions in CRM M-38607 of 2012:
Mr. J.S. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioners - Yasphal Aggarwal and Devinder Singh Sandhu Vendees, in addition to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for Vikas Garg -
petitioner, submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration of Rs.6.25 crores and have stepped into the shoes of seller Kiraninder Singh. No possession has been transferred to them. The price of the property in question has been wrongly shown as Rs. 250/-
crores, it is grossly inflated value of the property. The original owner Kanwar Brijinder Singh was allotted Kothi No.9, Baradari Garden, Patiala, by order dated 04.08.1950 of Raj Parmukh (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, mutation was entered in the name of Kanwar Brijinder Singh. Present owner Kiraninder Singh is the legal heir of the said original allottee.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the area of Government which was Transit Residence of the then Chief Justice CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 8 consisted of Khasra Nos. 101, 102 and 103 which comes out to be 12 bighas and 9 biswas, as is shown in the jamabandi for the year 2006-2006 (Annexure P/4). Learned counsel further contended that area of Khasra No. 103 can be measured at the spot. The remaining land should be left to the original owner i.e. Kiraninder Singh in whose shoes the petitioners have stepped in as bona fide purchasers. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the Deputy Commissioner at some stage had issued some letters to vacate the premises in pursuance of a notice sent by Kiraninder Singh through his counsel. Learned counsel has further argued that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners is valid as the power of attorney was initially valid though subsequently withdrawn but since the full consideration had been paid before cancellation of power of attorney, so the sale deeds are valid in view of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act. The contention is that since full and final consideration was paid, therefore, the power of attorneys were irrevocable for execution of sale deeds in question.
The said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners have been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the sales are fraudulent sales. No vacant land was in existence at the spot. Even the reference of Kothi No.9 in the order of Raj Parmukh is with regard to Kothi No.9 situated in the Baradari Garden, Patiala, the description of which has been given in Annexure P/3 wherein the boundaries have also CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 9 been mentioned, but no khasra number has been given. It only mentions "House No.9, Baradari Gardens together with houses, garden and other appurtenances there the whole of with premises with the land are shown on the plan annexed here to and measuring approximately 970 feet, north- south and 670 feet east-west and containing an area of 702820 sq. feet approximately and situated in the Town of Patiala and bounded as follows:-
On the east by cantonment road On the west by office of XEN, B&R On the north by Baradari Rajbaha Road and On the south by house of Col. Gurcharan Singh."
Annexure P/3 is a rapat roznamcha for the year 1951-52, it does not also mention about any khasra number. The petitioners are not bona fide purchasers. They have given mis-description in the sale deeds dated 14.10.2011 by mentioning khasra no. 104 situated in the Ram Bagh Area, Rajbaha Road, Patiala, whereas the Kothi No. 9 allotted to original allottee was situated in the Bardari Gardens. Ram Bag Area and Baradari Gardens are situated at different places. The power of attorney in favour of Jaswant Singh and Ravdeep Singh was already cancelled on 14.02.2011 vide Annexure P/16 at the instance of Kiraninder Singh. Certainly on the date when the sale deed was executed, there was no valid authorization as attorney had already been cancelled and power to execute on the basis of said General Power of Attorney stood revoked. Learned counsel for the CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 10 respondent further vehemently argued that the total area of Khasra No. 104 is 52 bighas and 9 biswas as shown in the mutation and made a reference to Annexure P/40 - Vigilance Enquiry No.1 dated 20.06.2012 against the petitioners and other revenue officials. From the perusal of chart annexed with Annexure P/40, it is clear that Kiraninder Singh had executed 19 sale deeds mutations of which have been entered which include the land sold to BSNL, earlier known as Postal & Telephone Department. The total area of these 19 sale deeds comes out to be 33 Bighas and 15-1/10 Biswas. In addition to it, out of the same very khasra no. 104, Kanwar Brijinder Singh during his life time had executed 20 sale deeds and the total area of these comes out to be 8 bighas and 13 biswas. Regarding these sale deeds, no mutations have been sanctioned, but at the spot houses are constructed and nor there area have been reflected in the revenue record. The sum total of the mutated and non-mutated areas comes out to be 42 bighas 8-1/10 biswas in which the houses/building have been constructed. The remaining area has been left as the passages i.e. the roads at the spot. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the reading of the sale deeds makes it clear that with a purpose to usurp the land of the government, the sale deeds have been executed giving khasra No. 104 and the dimensions have been given as on eastern side Rajbaha Road, western side property of the owners, northern side private palaces and thereafter Head Post Office and on the southern side of the property are kothis of the owners. In the sale deeds, areas have been mentioned as 01 bigha and 10 biswas CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 11 including the constructed part and the kothi has been mentioned as Kothi No.9, situated at Ram Bag, Rajabaha Road, Patiala, whereas the identity of Kothi No.9 which is alleged to be the ownership of Kiraninder Singh is mentioned as Kothi No.9, Baradari Gardens, Patiala. Both are different places, as such, identity cannot be established. It is with a purpose to usurp the land of the government where the number of offices are situated, these sale deeds have been executed with mala fide intention, in spite of the fact that there was no power of attorney in favour of Jaswant Singh and Ravdeep Singh on the date of execution, that stood already cancelled on 14.02.2011 (Annexure P/16). The sale deeds have been executed about 8 months after cancellation of power of attorney i.e. on 14.10.2011. The sale deeds were not presented by proper person and could not have been executed in view of the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules made thereunder. It was the duty of the Sub-Registrar/Joint Registrar to verify this fact before registration of the sale deeds. Learned counsel for the respondent also made a reference to Annexure P/21, wherein the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Patiala vide order dated 22.03.2011 had specifically passed order in pursuance of directions given in CWP No.4001 of 2011 by this Court and had categorically recorded the following findings:-
"10. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the representationists and by the Sub Registrar and Joint Sub Registrar, Patiala. The revenue record concerned CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 12 with the land in question has also been closely perused. Though it is correct that as per the provisions of the Act the Sub Registrar and Joint Sub Registrar are duty bound to register a validity executed sale deed. But in the instant case the land that has been mentioned in the two drafted sale deeds (the sale deeds were yet to be presented to the Sub Registrar or Joint Sub Registrar) does not belong to the petitioners No. 4 to 7. The location of the property as mentioned in the sale deeds annexure P-1 and P-2 is the same on which State Govt. offices and residences have been constructed since long and this property does not fall in the Khasra No. 104. This becomes crystal clear from the demarcation report dated 26.2.2011 carried out by the committee headed by the Tehsildar, Patiala. It is worthwhile to mention that one of the executants of these sale deeds i.e. Jaswant Singh s/o Kesar Singh had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala to carry out the demarcation of Khasra No. 104. Taking action on this application, a committee was constituted which was headed by the Tehsildar Patiala and the committee submitted its report on 26.2.2011. Tehsildar, Patiala has compared sides of the property mentioned in the sale deeds with the report of the committee constituted for the purpose of demarcation. From this comparison also it is clear that the land depicted in the two sale deeds (which are yet to be presented to the registration authority) is in the ownership of the State Government and it falls in Khasra No. 103 whereas petitioners No. 4 to 7 are owners of the land in khasra No. 104. It is thus absolutely clear that these petitioners have no concern with the land depicted CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 13 in the two drafted sale deeds. Furthermore, it was not the case of representationists that the State Government has encroached upon the land of the petitioners No. 4 to 7. Neither it was the case that in fact these petitioners had ever leased out their land to the State Government for the constructed of offices and residences. The learned counsel for the representationists denied the existence of any order of any competent court of law holding the ownership of the land on which these offices have been built as that of the petitioners. This fact shows that the land mentioned in theses two sale deeds and on which the offices and residences of the State Government are constructed, actually belongs to the State Government. The demarcation report submitted by the Tehsildar, Patiala makes the picture more than clear.
It is worthwhile to mention that petitioners No.1 to 3 have claimed to purchase the land in dispute from its original owners (who are petitioners No.4 to 7) on the basis of general/special power of attorneys executed on 2.11.2010 by the original owners in favour of two persons Ravdeep Singh and Jaswant Singh. On 24.4.2011 a letter was received in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala written by Kiranindra Singh who is owner as well as G.P.A. of other co-owners, stating that he has annulled the general/special power of attorneys executed in favour of the said persons i.e. Ravdeep Singh and Jaswant Singh. Tehsildar, Patiala also confirmed the facts with regard to registered deeds executed by petitioners No. 4 on 14.2.2011 in the office of Sub Registrar, Ludhiana (East) vide which he had annulled the general/special power of attorneys CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 14 executed earlier in favour of Ravdeep Singh and Jaswant Singh on 2.11.2010. It is, therefore, understood that petitioners No.1 to 3 are claiming to have purchased the land were not the true representatives of the original owners of the land falling in Khasra No.
104.
11. While arguing the case before me on 17.3.2011, neither the counsel nor the petitioners disclosed the fact of cancellation on 14.2.2011 of G.P.A./S.P.A.,which were earlier executed on 2.11.2010 in favour of the executants of the alleged sale deeds. In fact, Kiranindra Singh, petitioner no.4 (also holder of power of attorney of petitioners No.5 to 7) had informed the executants Ravdeep Singh and Jaswant Singh, along with the purchasers Yashpal, N.P. Singh and Devinder Singh Sandhu i.e., petitioners No.1 to 3 also about this. In spite of this, the date of execution of these alleged sale deeds has been mentioned as 24.2.2011. On this date the executants were no more representatives of the original owners. This brings in sharp relief the conduct of petitioner's No.1 to 3, the alleged purchasers of the land, who intentionally and knowingly concealed the fact of cancellation of general/special power of attorneys. The petitioners are trying to grab the government property by way of these dubious sale deeds by showing this property as owned by private persons.
12. In view of the above elaboration of location of the property as contained in the two drafted sale deeds, copy of the report of the committee of revenue officers which carried out the measurement of khasra no. 104 and in the existence of cancellation of genera/special CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 15 power of attorneys given by the owners of land in favour of the executants of the alleged sale deeds on the date on which these were written. I have no hesitation in holding that the property mentioned in the drafted sale deeds is in fact owned and possessed by the State of Punjab. The executants have absolutely no power to get this land sold to the petitioners No.1 to 3. So, no directions whatsoever can be given to Sub Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar Patiala to register these dubious and illegal sale deeds."
The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Patiala vide order dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P/21) had specifically directed that the power of attorney had been cancelled and the property in question is a government property and sale deeds cannot be executed. The petitioners in CRM M-38607 of 2012 filed CWP No. 4001 of 2011 and thus, were aware of the fact that power of attorney had already been cancelled and the sale deeds could not be executed in view of the order of the then Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Registrar. Subsequently when sale deeds had come for execution before the Sub Registrar, the Sub Registrar made a reference to DRO/Joint Registrar for clarification whether such sale deeds should be executed or not and had mentioned the relevant provisions. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner upon which the Deputy Commissioner did not put in black and white but the DRO had given a note that the matter was discussed with the D.C. Thereafter, a letter was issued from the office of Collector directing the Sub Registrar to register the sale deeds. The fact remains that firstly as per CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 16 Sections 34(3) and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar before registering sale deed to verify the fact whether the parties appearing before him are the proper person or they profess to be so or that document is not forged or has not been cancelled. Petitioner - Vikas Garg, the then Collector of Patiala, who was also the custodian of Government properties and the administrative head of the district having knowledge of all the facts and the records orally ordered the execution of the sale deed, although he has not signed on the papers. It is a common practice that the senior officer asks the subordinates to discuss and after discussion returns the file to proceed as discussed. Some time the senior officer even does not sign and only on the basis of oral discussion, the subordinate authorities take action and make note on that file. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that there is exchange of 600 telephonic calls between the various revenue officials including the Deputy Commissioner Vikas Garg, present petitioner, and the vendees petitioners and other revenue officials, which is clear indicative of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the present vendees and others were fully aware that the sale deeds could not be executed as earlier detailed order had been passed. Only remedy in such cases was by way of filing of civil suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act. In spite of all this, sale deeds have been executed by the petitioners and others in connivance and nexus with each other. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during the period from 26.08.2011 onwards, there were total CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 17 215 telephonic calls exchanged between the petitioners in both the petitions on the mobile no. 94788-00113 of Vikas Garg, Mobile No. 99151-00104 of Yashpal Aggarwal and Mobile Nos. 92168-80361 and 97793-33330 of Devinder Singh. Besides this, there were telephonic calls between the other revenue officials, Sub Registrar, Patwari, Kanungo etc. and the vendees. All the concerned persons are related to the execution of the sale deeds in question. In view of these facts, present petitions may be dismissed.
I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the dispute is with regard to Khasra No. 104, the total land of which, as per the petitioners and as mentioned in Annexure P/2, is 52 Bighas and 09 Biswas. It is also not in dispute that out of it as per the details mentioned in Annexure P/40, Kiraninder Singh and Kanwar Brijinder Singh had sold 42 bighas and 8-1/20 biswas of land to various persons wherein the houses/buildings are in existence. As per the State counsel, the remaining area has been left over for the passage/roads. Secondly, the area mentioned in the sale deeds, although referred to Khasra No. 104, Kothi No.9, Ram Bag, Rajbaha Road, Patiala, but the area as was given to the owners is in Kothi No.9, Baradari Gardens and does not have any khasra number. In the allotment order no khasra number has been mentioned. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that Kothi No.9, Baradari Garden is a different place than the Kothi No. 9, Ram Bag. Furthermore, CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 18 sale deeds could not have been executed by the Sub Registrar merely on the asking of his superiors. It is settled principle of law that the mutation does not confer any title. Mr. Kiraninder Singh had already cancelled the GPA/Special Power of Attorney on 14.02.2011 (Annexure P/16) and the sale deeds have been executed on 14.10.2011. There was no valid power of attorney on 14.10.2011. The Collector was duty bound under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 to enquire into this fact and thereafter pass order accepting or rejecting the execution of sale deeds. The connivance and nexus is prima facie established from the fact that there had been exchange of numerous calls between the vendees and the then Deputy Commissioner Vikas Garg during the relevant period. When there is a connivance the dishonest officers find it very difficult to put their intentions in black and white, lucidly, accurately and comprehensively. This sloppiness and intention in communication indicate the deliberate act on the part of the officers and is also indicative of the connivance to do an illegal act. Misuse of powers always does not mean to receive some thing in cash or kind but includes when the decisions are made in a clandestine manner without clear intentions for extraneous consideration. The facts of the present case clearly reveal that Vikas Garg petitioner had not taken the decision in the present case according to the provisions of the Act, Rules and the established procedure. In the order of Collector dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P/21), there was specific direction to the Sub Registrar / Joint Registrar, Patiala not to register the sale deeds. In that order, it is CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 19 specifically mentioned that the property is a government property and the power of attorney had been cancelled by the owners. Dehors the factual position, the petitioner Vikas Garg while acting as a Collector had ordered his subordinates to execute the sale deeds. This fact is borne out from the record as the file had gone up to the Collector wherein it is mentioned that `discuss the case', although no orders are there as to what was discussed. Once the file had gone to the Collector, he was duty bound to pass a speaking order in black and white after discussion if he had to reject or accept the reference sent by the Sub Registrar. During the course of inquiry explanation from petitioner - Vikas Garg, IAS was sought. He merely relied upon the legal notice dated 10.07.2009 whereby the then Deputy Commissioner has ordered to shift the government offices and vacate the buildings on the land in dispute. But he conveniently ignored the directions contained in the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by his predecessor District Collector on the directions of this Court. Petitioner Vikas Garg in his additional statement dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure P/23 in CRM M-38345 of 2012) submitted during the inquiry had stated as under:-
"I was also shown the statement of Sh. Gurinder Walia (Naib Tehsildar) in which he had stated that the note regarding advice for registering the sale deeds had been sent on being demanded by me. These statements are totally false and to confront them about these issues, I called them to my home on 10/08/2012 and recorded the conversation (DRO came but Naib Tehsildar did not come). In the recorded conversation (which has been CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 20 shown and can be presented at any time whenever asked), DRO clearly states that the letter of orders for registering the sale deed was issued at the behest of Walia (Naib Tehsildar) and even after issuing the orders, the orders were not shown to me. He further clarifies that the letter was shown to me after a news item in the papers on 25th Dec. 2011. From the recorded conversation, it is clear that I had not asked the DRO to issue any orders for registering the sale deeds and the note and orders came to my knowledge after 25th Dec.
2011 and I had marked the enquiry to the SDM."
From the reading of the above extracted statement of Vikas Garg, it is clear that he must have called the subordinate DRO Rajbir Singh and Gurinder Singh Walia to his house and recorded the above conversation just to save his skin. The subordinate must have been under pressure and stress to make such a statement particularly when petitioner - Vikas Garg had not been passed any order in blank and white in spite of the fact that file was sent to him. Even the letter for registration of the sale deeds has been issued from the office of Sh. Vikas Garg. This Court does not want to evaluate the evidentiary value of the above statement as it will prejudice the rights of the petitioners as well as the prosecution. It is the function of the trial Court. The records of the vigilance inquiry, police inquiry, as well as, the police file also reveal that the DRO had sent the file to the Deputy Commissioner and the whole matter was brought to his notice, wherein it is mentioned `discuss'. Thereafter, there is no order in the hands of the petitioner - Vikas Garg however, the DRO made a note CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 21 (Annexure P/17) which reads as under:
"Discussed with D.C. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it cannot be refused to register both the deeds. Hence, these deeds be registered."
Another disturbing feature has come out during the perusal of the record of the case that the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Registrar under the provisions of the Registration Act, passed order dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P/21) which was challenged before the Commissioner, who stayed the order dated 22.03.2011 whereas the Commissioner has no jurisdiction. Sections 71 to 77 of the Registration Act clearly prescribe the procedure and remedy available in case of refusal to register the sale deeds. Only civil suit could have been filed under Section 77 of the Registration Act. This is a clear and patent misuse of powers by the Government officials while directing the execution of sale deeds and granting the stay etc. From the perusal of the police file and the call details, it is clear that petitioners in both the cases were in touch with each other and petitioner - Vikas Garg had passed the order ignoring the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the provisions of the Registration Act. The market value of the property as stated by the Investigating Agency is more than Rs. 250 crores. Therefore, such like scandal needs to be thoroughly probed and the custodial interrogation is necessity in such like cases.
There are many other things noticed above but it is not CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 22 necessary to refer to and discuss the same on merits. To appreciate their evidentiary value at this stage is unwarranted. It will prejudice the right of both, petitioner and the prosecution. It is the function of the Trial Court only.
This Court deems it appropriate to mention here that the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is one of the premier Civil Services of the country. The Deputy Commissioner, an IAS officer is the head of the whole of the District Administration. He being administrative head of the district, is required to have first hand knowledge of the ground realities in the various parts of his District. Petitioner- Vikas Garg appears to have acted in an inward looking manner. His attitude is one of the indifference and insensibility to the government property. It points out inefficiency and ineffectiveness towards administration. The Government depends upon his officers who should be competent and motivated persons to run the system in order to provide efficient administration. When the officers commits or misuses the power, the policy of the government in regard to the crime committed by them, should be of zero-tolerance in order to create a climate of compliance with the laws which leads to maintenance of public order and effective steps for administration at the district level. So, this principle is applicable to the officers in the entire State. The civil servants manage various institutions of the government as trustees. Their approach to good governance is of great relevance. Ethics also require that they should look into the various aspects which affect the administration. The action and CRM M-38345 of 2012 & CRM M-38607 of 2012 23 inaction on their part if apparently is in conflict with the duties and responsibilities as Head of the District, it should be dealt with a heavy hand.
In the present case, the action of the petitioner-Vikas Garg in connivance with the vendees-petitioners in CRM M-38607 of 2012 and others is inconsistent, incompatible, rather in conflict with the established values and duties of a Deputy Commissioner. He failed to protect the government and public properties and resultantly acted in an inefficient manner, rather it appears that the petitioner is directly accountable for the mis-use of powers and responsibilities for his action. It is clear case of misuse of power and mal-administration. Herein the government property worth Rs. 250 crores is involved. This particular scandal barely scratches the surface of a base of power by the Government officer. Here is a case where the misuse of power by the government officer has been shown.
In view of the above discussion custodial interrogation is necessity to unearth the scam, therefore, both the petitions are dismissed. I clarify here that whatever has been said above is only for the limited purpose of deciding the anticipatory bail and anything said herein above shall not be treated an expression of opinion on the merits of this case.
December 21, 2012 [Paramjeet Singh] vkd Judge