Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9220

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, ACJ
Pranav Dev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Jammu – Respondent
O.A./1192/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Pant
For the Respondents: Hunar Gupta

Patwari lacks authority to issue Fard or attest mutations; Fard issuance and mutation attestation must be performed by competent revenue officers; suspension and attachment orders issued without a proper enquiry are unsustainable, warranting fresh enquiry within six months.

Headnote:(A) Statutory references and provisions: "Rule 31 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956"; "Section 13 of Agrarian Reforms Act"; "Section 20

(B) of Big Landed Estates Abolition Act". Key principles: "Fard can only be issued either by the Naib Tehsildar or Tehsildar"; "Patwari is only to prepare the Fard and thereafter the competent authority issues the Fard". Important facts: "The applicant was posted as Patwari in Patwar Halqa Bhalwal, Tehsil - Bhalwal, District Jammu"; "Vide order dated 27.7.2024 the applicant was placed under suspension"; "vide order dated 31.7.2024, the applicant has been attached in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chowki Choura"; "During the pendency of the present OA, the controversy has been set at rest by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB in short) by issuing an advisory"; "the charge sheet was served on 31.7.2023, but no enquiry has been conducted till date and the applicant continues under suspension without subsistence allowance". Main issues: "The instant OA is at initial stage and detailed enquiry report is still awaited from Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to clarify who has authenticated the said Fards"; "The respondents prayed for dismissal of the present application"; Findings and reasoning (ratio decidendi): "the applicant being Patwari, is not competent to issue the Fard or attest the mutation. Fard can only be issued either by the Naib Tehsildar or Tehsildar. Patwari is only to prepare the Fard and thereafter the competent authority issues the Fard"; "The record shows that neither any Fard has been issued by the applicant nor any mutation has bene attested by the applicant"; "During the pendency of the present OA, the controversy has been set at rest by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) by issuing an advisory"; "In such a situation the applicant cannot be placed under suspension". Final decision: "The OA is allowed. The orders dated 27.7.2024 and 31.7.2024 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to conduct fresh enquiry in the matter. The entire exercise be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs." Parties: Applicant (Patwari) v. Respondents (UT administration and officials). Dissent: No dissenting opinions indicated in the judgment.

Table of Content
1. reliefs sought by petitioner (Para 1)
2. chronology of postings and investigations (Para 2)
3. respondents' contentions and actions (Para 3)
4. applicant's rejoinder reiterates oa grounds (Para 4)
5. procedural posture and record perusal (Para 5)
6. fard authority; suspension validity; need fresh enquiry (Para 6)
7. remand for fresh enquiry; six-month limit (Para 7)

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, J.M.

The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2024 whereby the applicant was placed under suspension and order dated 31.7.2024 whereby he was attached in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chowki Choura, has filed the present application seeking the following relief :

i) allow the instant application along with costs;

ii) quash and set aside the order No. DIVCOMJMU(ESTT) 18 of 2024 dated 27.7.2024 issued by respondent No.2 whereby applicant has been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 31 of the J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956;

iii) Quash and set aside the order No. DCJ(Adm) 50 of 2024 dated 31.7.2024 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby applicant has been attached in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chowki Choura;

iv) Direct the respondents to allow the applicant to discharge his duties as Patwari in Patwar Halqa Tarah (Tehsil Dansal), which is lying vacant, till date;

v) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.

2. The fact of the case is that –

a) The applicant was posted as Patwari in Patwar Halqa Bhalwal, Tehsil – Bhalwal, District Jammu vide order dated 26.5.2017. The applicant joined as Patwari in Patwar Halqa Bhalwal on 29.5.2017. He was transferred out from Patwar Halqa Bhalwal vide order dated 6.12.2019.

b) In 2018-19 a controversy was raised with respect to issuance of Fard pertaining to land falling under Khasra Nos. 5552 and 5561 in Village Kanger, Tehsil Bhalwal, District – Jammu. The applicant was transferred out from Patwar Halqa Bhalwal vide order dated 6.12.2019. He handed over the charge of post of Patwari to the new incumbent on 14.12.2019. Vide order dated 8.12.2021 the applicant was attached in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu for further posting but he was not given further posting. The applicant was adjusted in Patwar Halqa Digiana, Tehsil Jammu South against an available vacancy vide order dated 28.9.2022. Immediately thereafter, vide order dated 13.10.2022, the applicant was transferred to Patwari Halqa Tarah, Tehsil Dansal.

c) An enquiry was conducted with respect to the issuance of Fards in 2021 and the issue was raised that the land which is recorded as Jaad cannot be subject matter of sale and as such no Fard can be issued. The office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu appointed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jammu North as an Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 7.7.2021.

d) Another complaint was made by one Mohit Mehra in the Lt. Governor’s Grievance Cell and again the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu asked the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jammu North to enquire into the matter. The observations made by the enquiry officer was conveyed to the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide communication dated 13.8.2022.

e) Another complaint was moved in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu by one Arshad Ayub and vide order dated 31.7.2023 the entries of mutations in the revenue record as recorded by the field staff after the mutations had been attested in pursuance to the sale deeds, were changed.

f) Article of charges was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu on the applicant vide memo dated 10.10.2023. The applicant received the article of charges on 13.10.2023 and replied to the same on 30.11.2023. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Jammu North was appointed as an enquiry officer but no enquiry was conducted. Neither any evidence was taken nor any witness

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9220

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, ACJPranav Dev Singh – AppellantVersusUnion Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Jammu – RespondentO.A./1192/2024

Patwari lacks authority to issue Fard or attest mutations; Fard issuance and mutation attestation must be performed by competent revenue officers; suspension and attachment orders issued without a proper enquiry are unsustainable, warranting fresh enquiry within six months.