news details |
|
|
| Court allows appeals, orders release of attached property | | | JAMMU, SEPTEMBER-02 Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Mr. Kartar Singh in a significant judgment allowed two appeals, filed by Mohinder Lal Incharge Ranger presently posted in Social Forestry, Batote and Sita Ram of Mohinder Lal, against the attachment of three shops situated at Nowshera, by Vigilance Organization during the investigation of FIR No 29/2006and said aside the impugned orders of attachments and ordered release of the attached property in favour of the appellants forthwith.
The appellants in their appeals submitted that three Marlas of land situated in Qasba Bala Nowshera were purchased in the year 1982 by the father of the Ranger for an amount of Rs 1500 only by way of agreement. The sale agreement was duly executed between the parties on January 15, 1983 before the Sub-Registrar Nowshera. At that time the father of the Ranger who was farmer and owned his landed property was not having his PRC so three Marlas of land was got registered in the name of his son Ranger, who was in Government service and was having PRC. This is the only reason that sale-deed was executed in the name of Mohinder Lal. Applicant Sita Ram got his PRC in the year 1987.
Special Judge Anticorruption, after hearing Adv SC Bali appearing for the appellant and Sr. Prosecuting Officer appearing for the SVO, observed that according to a copy of partition deed that the appellant Sita Ram is the prima-facie owner of the attached property. The said partition deed was executed by him on July 13, 1986 and was registered before Sub-Registrar Nowshera. In the said partition deed, it has been specifically mentioned by appellant Sita Ram that after his death his three sons should be entitled to have one shop each. This document goes to prove that the appellant No 2 (Sita Ram) is owner of the attached property and this fact further fortified that because the three sons of the appellant along with appellant No 1 (Mohinder Lal) are signatories to the said deed of partition. Court questioned, had the appellant Mohinder Lal raised the attached property of his own income, he cannot be’DANVEER KARAN OF KALYUG” to allow his father to execute the partition deed of his property and give it to his brothers also. The Designated Authority has not considered all these aspects of the case while passing the impugned order (conformation); though it has also the powers of the Civil Court for making full and fair enquiry to the matter. The record of Designated Authority reveals that SSP Vigilance while submitting the report of the attached property to the designated authority for its conformation, submitted a copy of Khasra Girdwari and the copy of the site plan of the three shops alleged to have been constructed by Ranger. The copy of the Khasra Girdwari reveals that appellant No 1 is owner of the three Marlas of land on which house and shop have been constructed but they are in possession of his father. Similarly in a site plan prepared by the Patwari three shops have been shown to be in possession of appellant No 2. Both these appellants have produced copy of licenses before the Designated Authority as well as before this court showing that the appellant No 2 was running tea-stall, Karayana Shop and kerosene oil depot in the attached properties. As such the applicant No 2 (Sita Ram) was most aggrieved party in this case. Because the perishable articles were lying in the seized shops and was required to be heard by the IO before attaching property and by the Designated Authority before passing of impugned order but it has not been done, so it has resulted in miscarriage of justice and on this score also, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Court with theses observations allowed the appeal and released the attached property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
