SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the second accused in the case registered as V.C.No.No.5/2014 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Eastern Range, Kottayam.

(2.) The case against the petitioner and the other accused is registered under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C Act') and also under Sections 465, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The allegations in the first information report (Annexure-I) in the case are as follows: On 11.08.2014, a surprise check was conducted at the Collectorate, Idukki and the Taluk Office, Udumbanchola by the Deputy Collector (LR), Idukki in the presence of the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Eastern Range, Kottayam. It was revealed during the surprise check that no proper follow up action was taken in the Taluk Office, Udumbanchola till August, 2010 with regard to the illegal occupation of government land in Sy.No.87/1 of Chinnakanal Village and the unauthorized construction of buildings therein by M/s.Joys Group (A3) which had been detected by the Deputy Tahsildar, Task Force-III in March, 2008. On the basis of a court direction, Sri.V.R.Mohanan Pillai (A1), who was then the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola, had issued proceedings dated 11.08.2011, declaring that the land having an extent of 3.41 acres, including part of the land covered by patta No.71/72 (2.14 acres), was in the unauthorised possession of M/s.Joys Group and directing the Village Officer, Chinnakanal to take steps for resumption of the land. There were two major procedural irregularities in issuing this order. The first irregularity was, instead of conducting the hearing personally as prescribed by the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, the Tahsildar (A1) entrusted that task to the Head Clerk. The second irregularity was that, the first accused, in paragraph 8 of his order clearly stated that the party was free to avail the appellate provisions under the above Act but he issued notice and conducted summary eviction. The first accused was convinced that manipulation of records had been done by M/s. Joys Group with the connivance of revenue officials but he did not take any legal action against the culprits. The above irregularities were done by the first accused deliberately to favour M/s.Joys Group. M/s.Joys Group challenged the above proceedings in the court, on the ground that the first accused had not followed the mandatory procedure before issuing the order. Later, on the basis of the direction of the court, Sri.P.Sunil Kumar (A2), who was then the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola, conducted a fresh hearing and he, without going through the back files and the factual position of the matter, issued a fresh proceedings dated 24.05.2014, which gave undue favour to M/s.Joys Group. Thus, the first and the second accused conspired with M/s.Joys Group and they abused their official position and allowed M/s.Joys Group to get undue pecuniary advantage and caused corresponding loss to the Government.