Des Raj vs Commissioner, Jalandhar Division

B.B. Mahajan, F.C.

This is an appeal under the Punjab Revenue Patwaris, ClassIII Service Rules, 1966 read with Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 against the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated the 10th January, 1983, vide which he rejected the appeal of the appellant.

The facts of the case in brief, are that Des Rajappellant while working as Patwari in Circle Nabipur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was found guilty of carelessness and negligence for not recording a note in Jamabandi for the year 197071 of village Babri in respect of the attachment of land of Shri Barjant Singh, ExExcise Contractor of village Babri, by the Excise and Taxation Department, for the recovery of Government dues to the tune of Rs 2,72,942/. He was served with a show cause notice on the 26th February, 1980 as to why his one increment with cumulative effect be not stopped for this lapse. He failed to submit any reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated period of 15 days. The Collector (Deputy Commissioner) Gurdaspur ordered the stoppage of one increment of the appellant with cumulative effect, vide his order dated the 13th October, 1980. The appellant challenged this order in appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who vide his order dated the 10th January, 1983 rejected it. This order has now been impugned by the appellant before me.

I have heard the counsel for the appellant and Naib Sadar Kanungo, office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur for the State. The counsel for the appellant has stated that the reply to the show cause notice served on the appellant on the 29th March, 1980 had been replied by him on the 3rd April, 1980. The appellant has mentioned in para 2 of his Memorandum of Appeal, specific No. and date of the letter vide which this reply was forwarded by Naib Tehsildar, Dhar Kalan to Tehsildar, Pathankot. A copy of the reply has also been attached to the appeal at Annexure A1. The Collector has not considered this reply while passing the impugned order dated the 13th October, 1980 on the plea that the appellant had not submitted any reply to the notice. Since the appellant had submitted his reply through proper channel within the prescribed period of 15 days the same should have been considered before passing the impugned order. I find that this plea had also been taken before the Commissioner but he has not gone into the same. The Naib Sadar Kanungo appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to contradict this position.

The counsel for the appellant has thereafter argued that there is no provision in the Punjab Land Records Manual for making entry of attachments in the Jamabandi. An entry about attachment is only required to be made in Roznamcha Waqiati vide serial No. (9) under para 3.81 of the Land Records Manual. The Naib Sadar Kanungo has referred to the provision at serial No.(10) under para 7.41 of the Manual which provides that a note should be made in column 12 (remarks column) if a holding or a part of holding has been hypothecated to Government as security for a takavi loan. The provision would, however, not apply to attachment. While a mutation is required to be entered in the case of hypothecation or mortgage of land no such mutation is required to be entered in case of attachment. Moreover, as stated by the counsel for the appellant an entry of attachment in the Jamabandi would create complications as the Patwari is not intimated when loan is repaid and the attachment order is withdrawn. The plea that the entry regarding attachment is not required to be made in the Jamabandi and that it had been duly made in the Roznamcha Waqaiti, where it is required to be made, had been raised in the appeal before the Commissioner also, but no finding on the same has been given. The Naib Sadar Kanungo was allowed an opportunity to produce any other Government instructions that may require entry regarding attachment to be made in the Jamabandi but he has failed to do so.

In the circumstances, no negligence or failure to comply with Government instructions has been proved against the appellant. The appeal is accordingly accepted. The punishment imposed on the appellant is set aside. A copy of this order may be sent separately to the Land Revenue branch of my office to examine the desirability of making a provision in the instructions regarding entry of orders of attachment in the remarks column of the Jamabandi.

Announced.