Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Jay Thareja, DHJS
CLOR No.20/2023
State v Closure Report
FIR No.23/2015
PS AntiCorruption Branch
26.03.2024
At 04:00 pm.
Present : None.
1. The FIR of this case was registered, on 04.06.2005, on the basis of
a rukka/tehrir prepared suomotto by Inspector Sushil Kumar of PS ACB, on
04.06.2015. For the sake of clarity, the said rukka/tehrir, is reproduced below:
“To
The Duty officer,
PS Anti Corruption Branch,
GNCT of Delhi
Sir,
Source information was received that large scale
violation of various provisions of The Delhi Land Reform
Act, 1954 is taking place during registration of sale
deeds/registry/instrument of sale of agricultural land in the
villages falling under the jurisdiction of eSubRegistrarVI
B (Narela).
To ensure that Agriculture Land is not
converted/misused for commercial/residential purposes,
NOC is required from the area ADM (LA) Delhi by the
seller/purchaser before registration of sale deed. NOC is
required to prevent violation of section 33, 74(4) and 81 of
DLR Act 1954.
-- 1 of 10 --
During the process of verification of this source
information, certified copies of sale deeds registered
during the period 01.01.2015 to 15.05.2015 were collected
from the eSubRegistrar VIB (Narela) Office and the
same were scrutinized. The NOCs submitted at the time of
registration of sale deed were also scrutinized. As per
rules, the seller is required to fill up a form in triplicate for
obtaining NOC. In this form, the details of the transferor,
transferee, area proposed to be transferred and address
of the land purposed to be transferred are also filled. This
form is also signed by the transferor and the transferee at
the time of filing NOC form. The form for applying for NOC
clearly directs that separate form is to be submitted for
each instruments of transfer purposed to be registered.
However, during scrutiny, it was found that various sellers
have obtained single NOC from the office of ADM (LA)
Delhi and have executed more than one instrument of
transfer (sale deed) in the name of different transferees on
the basis of single NOC. In this way, transferor avoids
paying of fee for obtaining NOC for other purchasers. After
applying for NOC, the NOC form is sent to the office of
SDM concerned i.e. SDM (Narela) or SDM (Alipur) as per
the address of the land where the record of concerned
land is verified at the level of Patwari and other officials of
the Revenue Department. During enquiry it was also found
that NOC for the transfer of agricultural land is verified by
the Patwari as being agricultural land whereas at the spot
the agricultural land is already being used for other than
agricultural purposes.
From the scrutiny of revenue records and the
source information, it is established that the seller and
purchaser of the agricultural land under the jurisdiction of
-- 2 of 10 --
eSubRegistrarVIB are violating 33, 74 (4) and 81 of
DLR Act 1954 in active connivance with eSubRegistrar
VIB and the officials of revenue department posted at
various ranks at the office of SDM (Narela) and SDM
(Alipur). The required fee for obtaining separate NOCs is
also not being paid and various instruments of transfer are
executed on the basis of single NOC thereby causing
wrong full loss to the government exchequer and wrong ful
gain to themselves. The revenue staff knowingly and
deliberately does not point out this misdeed by adopting
corrupt and illegal means and abuses their official position
for pecuniary gain for themselves and for other persons.
From the facts mentioned above, prima facie,
offence u/s 13(1)(d), 13 (2) of PC Act r/w 420/120B IPC is
made out. Case be registered and investigation of the
case be handed over to Inspector Manoj Aggarwal as
approved by the senior officers.
Date and time of offence : Not Known
Place of occurrence : Office of the eSub
RegistrarVIB (Narela) and
offices of the SDM (Narela)
and SDM (Alipur)
Date and time of handing
over Rukka
: 040615 at 06:25 PM
(Sushil Kumar)
Inspector/ACB
D3028, PIS No. 16900005 ”
2. Immediately after registration of FIR of this case, on the basis of the
abovequoted rukka/tehrir, the first IO, Inspector Manoj Aggarwal alongwith
Inspector Sushil Kumar and Ct. Devender had arrested Sh. Gulshan Kumar, the
then SubRegistrar VIB (Narela), on 05.06.2015, on the premise that he was
-- 3 of 10 --
indulging in corruption and sought his two days police custody, from the Court of
Sh. Narottam Kaushal, the then Special Judge (PC Act)05 (ACB), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi.
3. During his police custody of two days, approved by the Court of Sh.
Narottam Kaushal, the then Special Judge (PC Act)05 (ACB), Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi, Sh. Gulshan Kumar had disclosed to the first IO, Inspector Manoj Aggarwal
that the procedure/practice being followed in the Office of SubRegistrar VIB
(Narela) is that at the time of proposed registration of a sale deed, the seller is
required to submit in the Office of the concerned SubRegistrar, (a) an
application, (b) an affidavit/declaration of rightful ownership and (c) a fee of
Rs.100/ qua each NOC; that then, the application and affidavit/declaration is sent
to the Office of ADM (LA) Delhi, who in turn sends it to the Office of the
concerned SDM; that in the Office of the concerned SDM, it is verified whether
the land is in dispute or whether any proceedings are going on qua the land; that
in case nothing adverse is found, a report is called from the concerned Patwari;
that in the report, the Patwari verifies, from the vantage point of Section 81 of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, whether the land is being used for agriculture
purpose and from the vantage point of Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms
Act, 1954, whether the land has been allotted for any specific purpose; that on
the basis thereof, the Office of the concerned SDM sends a verification report to
the Office of ADM (LA) Delhi; that then, the Office of ADM (LA) Delhi verifies,
from the vantage point of Section 8 of Delhi Land Registration and Transfer Act,
1972, whether the land is acquired; that only if nothing adverse is found, the NOC
is issued and sent to the Office of the concerned SubRegistrar and that as per
the practice being followed by his predecessors, he was permitting use of single
NOC, for more than one instrument of transfer/sale deed.
4. Upon expiry of the two days police custody of Sh. Gulshan Kumar,
the bail application of Sh. Gulshan Kumar was considered/taken up for hearing by
the Court of Sh. Narottam Kaushal, the then Special Judge (PC Act)05 (ACB),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 08.06.2015. In the ensuing order, granting bail to Sh.
-- 4 of 10 --
Gulshan Kumar, Sh. Narottam Kaushal, the then Special Judge (PC Act)05
(ACB), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, had observed as under:
“I find merits in the argument of Sh. Singla that
prosecution seems to be in the process of building a
case merely on suspicion. There, of course, is no
complaint that applicant had been accepting illegal
gratification from the buyers or the sellers. As per the
case of the prosecution, the applicant was not insisting
on NOC, for each parcel of land, for which sale deed
was registered. In my opinion, there was no necessity
of insisting of separate NOC for each registration, when
NOC for the entire piece of land had been issued. NOC
is only a declaration that land is not under acquisition.
Once this declaration is issued for entire chunk of land,
insisting of separate NOC for each registration would
amount to unnecessarily harassing the citizens. In
terms of order dated 04.10.2006 passed by Divisional
Commissioner, Delhi, applicant could not have refused
registration of Sale Deed. There, being no allegation of
demand & acceptance of illegal gratification, I am of the
opinion that applicant is entitled to concession of
bail. ...”
5. Interalia , keeping in view the aforesaid observation of Sh. Narottam
Kaushal, the then Special Judge (PC Act)05 (ACB), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the
first IO, Inspector Manoj Aggarwal, had sent a letter no. 5824/FIR/23/15/MA/ACB
dated 01.08.2016, written by the DCP, ACB to the ADM, North, Delhi, asking
certain pointed questions. In response, Sh. Lekhraj, the then ADM, North, Delhi
had written letter no. ADM/North/2019/19921994 dated 24.06.2019 to the DCP,
PS ACB, giving his answers/replies. The questions and answers/replies, forming
part of the said letters, are reproduced below:
-- 5 of 10 --
Sl.
No.
Question Answer/Reply
1. What is the role and responsibility
of Revenue officials From
Patwari to Tehsildar in verifying
the NOC regarding transfer/sale
of agricultural land?
Revenue officials i.e. of Tehsil office
provides the report that if there is any
violation of U/s 33, 74(4) and 81 of
DLR Act in r/o the land.
2. If an NOC is issued in the name
of A as a seller and B as a
purchaser, can it be used by A for
selling the same or a part thereof
to C as another independent
purchaser? Can mutation be
done in the name of C?
Land owner applies for the status
report of the land & after getting the
status report he/she may sell it to any
person. Mutation is done in the name
of purchaser.
3. It is specifically mentioned on the
top of the NOC that “To be
submitted separately…
Documents to be office.” Are
there any standing instructions or
procedural instructions on the
subject that one NOC can be
used to transfer more than one
property or otherwise.
If any land status report of the
particular land bearing Khasra No. is
obtained, it is not necessary to again
obtain the land status report of the
same land having same Khasra no.
and the executants/purchaser may sell
the land to any person.
4. There is a stamp affixed on the
NOC that the “Sale deed should
be made only in favour of…...
Only.......person and nobody
else”. Is it possible that the same
NOC can be still be used for
executing the sale deed in the
name of a person other than the
one mentioned in the stamp
After getting the status report, the Land
owner/Seller can execute the sale
deed on the name of any person.
-- 6 of 10 --
mentioned above?
5. Vide serial no. 4 of page 2 of the
NOC (sample enclosed) wherein
it is mentioned that “detailed
description …. in the documents.”
Is it possible that the transferor
can sell the lad in parts lesser in
size mentioned in the Para thus
causing fragmentation of the
agricultural land?
The transferor can sell the land of
which he has issued status report, to
anybody in land in parts lesser size.
6. The order No.
F.1(5)/Reg.Br./Div.Comm./205/66
55 dated 05.12.2005 (Copy
enclosed) issued by Sh. G.K.
Marwah, Divisional
Commissioner, mentions about
transfer of Un economical
holding. Kindly specify the
area/size of uneconomical and
economical lands.
In continuation of order No.
F.1(5)/05/Regn. Br./Div.
Comm/205/6655 dated 05.12.2005, a
new order No. F.1(15)/Regn. Br./Div.
Comm/2005/502/11371164 dated
04.10.2006 was issued by the
department. (Copy enclosed for your
reference).
7. If a person owns 10 acres of
agricultural land, can he sell out 2
acres out of this land and retain 8
acres with himself. Keeping in
view the order mentioned at serial
6 above.
Yes.
8. If a person owns 4 acres of land,
can he sell his entire land to four
different person in fragmentation
keeping in view the order
mentioned at point 6 above.
Yes.
-- 7 of 10 --
9. What is the minimum area of
agricultural land, the sale of which
can be registered through a sale
deed?
‘Biswansi’ is the minimum area of
agricultural land that can be registered
through a sale deed.
10. Is there any order/notification
related to NOC issued after the
order mentioned at point 6 above.
If yes kindly provide the same.
Yes, copy enclosed.
11. What is the sole purpose of
issuing the NOC?
The basic role of a status report is to
know about any land status whether
the land is not under any acquisition
i.e. not notified under section 4 & 6 of
The Delhi Lands (Restrictions of
Transfer) Act, 1972.
6. The relevant part of the order No. F.1(15)/Regn. Br./Div.
Comm/2005/502/11371164 dated 04.10.2006 issued by Sh. Narender Kumar,
the then Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD (referred at Sl. no. 6 of the aforesaid
table), is reproduced below:
“...it is clarified that in case a Bhumidar sells a part of
his holding which is less than eight acres, the same
need not be denied registration by the Registration
Authority under the Registration Act. However, as
decided by the Hon'ble High Court in the enclosed
judgment dated 12th Dec 2005, the Revenue Authorities
shall look into the issue of violation of section 33 in
pursuant to sell, at the time of mutation when the
transfer of Bhumidar right is claimed and in case
violation of section 33 is noticed necessary action as
contemplated under Section 42 of DLR Act 1954 shall
be taken.”
-- 8 of 10 --
7. Keeping in view the entire information received vide letter no.
ADM/North/2019/19921994 dated 24.06.2019 of Sh. Lekhraj, the then ADM,
North, Delhi, the sixth and the final IO of this case, Inspector Pramod Kumar has
concluded that this case deserves to be closed because the assumption made at
the time of the registration of the FIR of this case that for every instrument of
transfer/sale deed, a separate NOC from the Office of ADM(LA) Delhi is required
and Sh. Gulshan Kumar, the then SubRegistrar VIB (Narela) was intentionally
not following the said requirement, in order to cause wrongful loss to the
government and wrongful gain to himself, has been found to be patently false.
8. Upon perusal of the record of this closure report, on 09.12.2023, I
had questioned the answers/replies given by Sh. Lekhraj, the then ADM, North,
Delhi vide his letter no. ADM/North/2019/19921994 dated 24.06.2019 to the
question no. 2 and 4, mentioned in the letter no. 5824/FIR/23/15/MA/ACB dated
01.08.2016, written by the DCP, ACB to the ADM, North, Delhi, on the premise
that the said answers/replies, appeared to be contrary to the stamp appearing on
the NOCs issued by the Office of ADM(LA) Delhi. In response thereof, the sixth
and the final IO of this case, Inspector Pramod Kumar has filed letter no.
F.5(10/LAC(N)/Misc.Cor./Other Department/2023/2317 dated 31.01.2024 of Sh.
Nilesh Nishikant Gurav, LAC/ADM(North), reaffirming the aforesaid
answers/replies.
9. In the aforesaid state of affairs, this closure report is accepted and
Sh. Gulshan Kumar, the then SubRegistrar VIB (Narela), arrested in this case,
on 05.06.2015 is released from this case. As a result, the bail bonds furnished by
him, on 08.06.2015 stand canceled and his surety, Sh. Krishan Kumar, stands
discharged.
10. After completion of necessary formalities, the Ahlmad shall consign
this file to the record room.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the sixth and the final IO of this case,
-- 9 of 10 --
Inspector Pramod Kumar, for intimating Sh. Gulshan Kumar, the then Sub
Registrar VIB (Narela).
(JAY THAREJA)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
26.03.2024
-- 10 of 10 --