Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned special counsel for the Lokayuktha/respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2/Joint Director of Land Records (herein after referred to as 'JDLR') filed the complaint to the then Anti Corruption Bureau alleging that accused persons recommended for the Phodi Durasthi of the land belonging to the Forest Department without proper verification in respect of survey No.46 of Ambarapur village, Tumkur district wherein out of this said land total measuring of the said land was 421 acres, 35 guntas, out of which 300 acres said to be granted to the Forest Departments in the year 1926. Subsequently, 91 acres have been allocated to the Horticulture Department and the remaining 209 acres belongs to the Forest Department. The Revenue Department is having 121 acres 35 guntas and Revenue Department said to be granted occupancy rights to various persons, when the applications were made by the occupants for doing 'Phodi Durasthi' without properly verifying the documents, the accused have recommended for Durasthi and phodi and it was done. Thereby, the lands of the Forest Department has been recommended to phode. Even though the application of the Forest Department for bifurcation of land has been pending. Therefore, the accused persons committed an offence by doing 'Phodi Durasthi' and caused loss to the Forest Department for the pecuniary benefit of 103 acres and 5 guntas of land has been misused, thereby the charge sheet came to be filed. The accused persons being aggrieved by the same, filed this petition for quashing the charge sheet.

5. Learned counsel also contended that once in the departmental enquiry the petitioner was exonerated from the Articles of charges, therefore once again on the same charge, criminal case cannot be registered. It is further contended that the State Government themselves granted the land to the various grantees and as per their revenue records, the lands were pertaining to the State Government or Revenue Department. Such being the case, the question of rejecting the request for Phodi does not arises. The petitioners have verified the documents, the Revenue Records and signed documents. The spot inspection made by the other officials, and based upon the same, he has forwarded for the Order. Therefore, there is no offence committed by the petitioner. Hence, prayed for allowing the Criminal petition.

7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. On perusal of the records, which reveals that the petitioner said to be the Joint Director of Land records and he said to be recommended for Phodi Durasthi of the land in Sy.No.46 Ambarapur village, Tumkur district. It is alleged that the said land was 421 acres and 35 guntas, out of which 300 acres have been allocated to the Forest Department in the year 1926 itself and out of the 300 acres of Forest land, 91 acres of land said to be allocated to the Horticulture Department and the remaining land was 209 acres belonging to the Forest Department. The petitioner said to be recommended for Phodi Durasthi for 225 acres of about 78 people, more than 103 acres of the land belonging to the Forest Land. Out of 421 acres, only 121 acres are remaining with the Revenue Department, but the petitioner recommended for 225 acres i.e, 103 acres more than the part not available to the Revenue Department, which belongs to the Forest Department, whereby he has commited misconduct.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that though the Articles of charges issued against other accused or co-employees, where the guilt was not proved, as most of the witnesses were not properly examined and due to long gap the charges were dropped by the State. However, this petitioner is a Joint Director of the Land Records and he is the main authority for issuing the records and recommended for the phodi. Though the Articles of charges were issued against him, but he has got quashed before the Appellate Tribunal, but the petitioner has not undergone any departmental enquiry and no appreciation of documents or evidence and he has been exonerated. But on the ground of parity he has got exonerated. Whereas, in this case a serious allegation against him is for mis-conduct or recommending for 'Phodi and durasthi' without properly looking to the documents. Thereby, more than 103 acres were recommended, excess than the land available for the Revenue Department.