2007(6) ALL MR 149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
Samaj Bhushan Sahakari Gruha Nirman Sanstha Ltd.Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Writ Petition No.3738 of 1995
21st August, 2007
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S. P. HEDAOO
Respondent Counsel: Mr. SHYAM AHIRKAR,Mr. A. S. KILOR
Penal Code (1860), S.193 - Perjury - Swearing of false affidavit by Tahsildar - Issue of show cause notice and imposition of cost - Validity - Petitioner explaining the circumstances with detailed affidavit - Petitioner not found at fault for want of avaibility of document and incorporation of relevant fact - Issue of notice of perjury and imposition of cost - Thus found improper. (Para3)
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT :- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the respondents.
2. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 8-6-2007. Registry of this Court issued show cause notice to Dilip Pandharinath Talmale, the then Tahsildar Nagpur (Rural), asking him as to why action for swearing false affidavit dated 5-6-1996 to the return in the said writ petition should not be taken against him. While allowing the writ petition, cost of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed on said D. P. Talmale payable by him personally.
3. In response to the said notice, D. P. Talmale has filed a detailed affidavit along with relevant documents. He has taken a stand that the Additional Collector, U.L.C., had written a letter to the S.D.O. saying that entry Nos.78, 79 and 80 dated 23-1-1990 were taken illegally because the transfer of field property under the sale-deed was itself illegal. Pursuant to this letter from the Additional Collector, U.L.C., the S.D.O. issued a letter dated 22-8-1995 to D. P. Talmale, who was then Tahsildar, directing him to cancel the said mutation entries. Acting on this particular letter it appears that the then Tahsildar Shri. Talmale processed the case for further action and accordingly sent a proposal for review of the order granting mutation. Thereafter the S.D.O. granted permission to review and pursuant thereto the Tahsildar (Rural) cancelled the said mutation entries which were under challenge in this petition. It further appears from the letter dated 28-9-1995 that the Additional Collector, U.L.C. had issued a letter to the Tahsildar (Rural) which, if read, is in the nature of show cause notice as to why action for cancellation of mutation entries was not taken. Looking to all these documents it clearly appears to me that the then Tahsildar was directed by his superiors to cancel the mutation entries since, according to them, the transfer of lands in question was not according to law. It is surprising that though the documents were available at the time when Return was filed to this writ petition, neither these facts were brought in the return nor these documents were filed with the return. I really wonder as to how these events were not incorporated in the return and why these documents were not filed along with the return. In my opinion, the Government Officers as well as the Asstt. Govt. Pleaders are required to be alert and careful in placing the material on record, as in absence thereof some innocent person is likely to be affected. I am satisfied that this is a case where the then Tahsildar Shri. Talmale was not at fault and had all these facts as well as documents been brought on record when the petition was heard, neither the order imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- nor the show cause notice for perjury would have been issued. In the result, the order directing payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- personally payable by Shri. Talmale, the then Tahsildar, is recalled, so also the order issuing show cause notice to him as to why action for perjury should not be taken, is recalled. Consequently, proceedings are dropped. With this, no further orders are necessary.