Claims under the Prevention of Corruption Act must demonstrate clear wrongdoing; mere allegations arising from a civil dispute lack grounds for prosecution.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein is the complainant in C.M.P No.653 of 2016 of the Special Court (Vigilance), Kozhikode. He brought the said complaint against the Additional Tahsildar, Tirurangadi Revenue Taluk, and the complainant's brother Chandran. The allegation in the complaint briefly is that the Tahsildar wrongly directed the Village Officer to receive land tax for a property in dispute. Admittedly, there was, at that time, a civil dispute between the complainant and his brother regarding the said property. Thus, it is in dipute, as to who exactly is the owner of the property or who is entitled to possess the property. It is alleged that without making any enquiry regarding the person in actual possession or without verifying the result of the civil proceedings, the Tahsildar directed the Village Officer to receive land tax. The complainant alleges corruption or misconduct in this act of the Tahsildar. He also makes such allegations against his own brother that he either facilitated the commission of offence by the Tahsildar, or he and the Tahsildar conspired to commit such an offence.

2. The learned trial Judge meticulously perused the whole complaint, and found that what is practically alleged is only a civil dispute, and that there is no scope at all to proceed under the Prevention of Corruption Act . Accordingly, by order dated 9.12.2016 the trial court rejected the complaint. The aggrieved complainant is now before this Court in revision.

3. On a perusal of the impuged order and also the complaint made by the revision petitioner, I find that the complaint was rightly rejected by the trial court. It appears that the allegation of corruption made by the complainant is really dishonest and mischievous, and his only grievance practically is that the Tahsildar wrongly directed the Village Officer to receive land tax when the civil dispute was pending. If at all such a direction was given wongly by the Tahsildar, and if land revenue happened to be collected wrongly, either without verifying the result of the civil proceedings or with the full knowledge of the civil proceedings, a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is possible only if the required necessary elements are there. Such elements are not seen definitely alleged in the complaint. On a reading of the whole complaint, I find that practically the grievance of the complainant is only that the Tahsildar wrongly directed the Village Officer to receive land revenue. He suspects some sort of conspiracy between the Tahsildar and his brother. If at all he is actually in possession, and if his possession or title is found and affirmed by the Civil Court, payment of land tax made by his brother will have no value or conssequence in law. It can simply be ignored, because payment of land revenue by the other will never confer title on him. The complainant need not worry on this aspect. If he has succeeded in civil litigation, he can claim right over the property. Payment of revenue by the 2nd accused, or acceptance of revenue by the Tahsildar or the Village Officer will not in any circumstance defeat his right. I fiind that the complaint was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge on the finding that there is no scope at all to proceed or that the complaint does not disclose any definite offence under the .

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files.