MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN Vs. SUSHEEL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, now know to the public as the King of Land Grabbers is the petitioner in this writ petition. He disclosed to be public disturbing facts. He involved in the alleged acts of land grabbing some senior civilians and veteran political grandsires provoking a probe by a high power commission. He now seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to interdict the proceeding of the commission of Inquiry, Land Grabbing, by the issue of writ mainly on the ground that the procedure followed by the commission is contrary to the provisions of the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder.

(2.) By G.O. Ms. No. 146, General Administration (General-B) Department, dated 17/03/1982 the Government of Andhra pradesh appointed a commission of Inquiry under the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (central Act 60 of 1952) consisting of a single member viz., sri susheel Kumar, I.A.S. commissioner of sugar and Ex-officio secretary to Government industries and commerce department to enquire into the allegations of land grabbing by Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, the petitioner. The commission was requested to complete its enquiry and submit its report on or before 17/05/1982. Subsequently, by G.O. Ms. No. 208. General Administration (General-B) department dated 13/04/1982, an amendment to the Notification issued under G.O. Ms. No. 146 was issued. By the said amendment, the terms of reference were modified and they read as follows:-

(3.) The commission issued notices on 26-5-1982 under Rule 4(1) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh commissions of Inquiry rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred ot as the rules) to the petitioner and several others to furingh statements in duplicate accompanied by affidavits and documents relating to the matters mentioned in the notice. Simultaneously with the issue of the aforesaid notice, a general notification in all important local dailies was got published as required by Rule 4 (1) (b0 of the Rules. In response to the above notices, several persons filed statements supported by affidavits and documents indicting the petitioner. But the petitioner raised several objections to the notice contending that the notice was ultra virus the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, and further that land grabbing by a particular individual was not a matter of public importance for the appointment of any commission to recall its notice. On a consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner the commission by its order dated 23/06/1982 rejected the contentions of the petitioner. The commission to inspect such documents as were produced before the commission. After a careful scrutiny of the several affidavits and documents received by the commission in response to the notices under Rule 4 (1) (b) of the rules the commission felt that the allegations contained in and the information furnished through the aforesaid affidavits and documents might prejudicially affect the petitioners reputation. So on 24-6-1982. Three notices were issued to the petitioner under section 8-b of the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 24-6-82 and 26-6-82 and 26-6-82. By the said notices, the petitioner was informed that it was necessary to enquire into his conduct and his reputation may be prejudicially affected by the allegations contained and the information furnished in the affidavits mentioned in the notices. He was further informed that he may avail of the opportunity by producing the necessary material in the form of affidavits accompanied by the authenticated documents touching the matters raised in the affidavits particularly regarding the nature, identity of survey Numbers and extent of the land abutting or forming part of Makta madar shah the possession of which the Government had taken on 2-5-1982, the land alleged to have been encroached upon by Bakelite Hylam Employees co-operative House building society, the land claimed by the united co-operative Housing society. Hyderabad and our home weaker sections co-operative society which is said to belong to jubilee hills Housing society, Hyderabad. The petitioner made three applications on 29-6-1982, 30-6-1982 and 1-7-1982, in respect of the aforesaid three notices respectively requesting the commission to furnish the copies of the several documents referred to in the affidavits mentioned in the notices and give him reasonable time to submit his explanation after furnishing the copies. He also requested that under the Act he cannot be called upon to submit his explanation even before he is given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses by calling them before the commission with reference to the affidavits filed by them. The commission of Inquiry by its order dated 3-7-1982, observed that the commission of Inquiry was only a fact-finding body and that the procedure adopted by the commission was not violative of the principles of natural justice. Further the petitioner was permitted to inspect all the documents filed before the commission between 5-7-1982 and 9-7-1982 and take copies of any documents in the presence of the secretary to the commission within the stipulated time. He was also granted extension of time to avail of the opportunity as provided in the notices under section 8B of the Act by 12-7-1982. On 5-7-1982 While the petitioner was taking extracts of the order dated 15-9-1950. The representative of the revenue Department N. Veera Reddy objected to the taking of extracts from the above report. Therefore the petitioner filed a petition on 5-7-1982, requesting the commission to permit him to take a copy of the report of the land record Officer referred to in the order of the collector dated 15-9-1950. He also filed petitions on 6-7-1982 and 7-7-1982 to summon the officers who have given report against him and permit him to cross-examine them as well as the investigating officers. He claimed that he has such a right to cross-examine the witnesses under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The commission of inquiry by its order dated 7-7-1982 up held the privilege claimed on behalf of the revenue department under sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act in respect of 4 documents and permitted the petitioner to take copies of the other documents. The prayer of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses who have sworn to the affidavits before the Commission was rejected holding that the right to cross-examine a witness arises only when a witness is examined orally by the commission and not when the evidence is taken on affidavits. The petitioner was permitted by the commission to tender his evidence in the form of affidavits as already intimated to him in the notices issued under section 8B of the Act. Aggrieved against the proceedings of the commission dated 24-6-1982, 26-6-1982 and 26-6-1982 under sec. 8B of the Act and the order of the commission dated 7-7-1982 rejecting the request of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses who have given evidence by way of affidavits, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said notices under section 8B of the Act and the order of the commission dated 7-7-1982.