Diplomat Correspondent
Jammu: DD, Anti-Corruption Bureau today registered a case against then Tehsildar, who has expired, and two others in revenue department for illegal mutation of land records.
As per the ACB statement, a case under FIR No. 17/2025 u/s 5(1) (d) r/w section 5(2) of J&K PC Act, Svt. 2006 and section 120-B RPC at Police Station ACB Jammu against then Tehsildar (Settlement) Jammu (now expired), then Patwari Halqa Sunjwan (now retired as Naib Tehsildar) as well as beneficiaries Mohammed Rashid, resident of Jalalabad Sunjwan Jammu, Mohd Mushtaq, resident of Sunjwan in Jammu and others.
“The FIR was registered on the outcome of verification conducted into the allegations of illegal and fraudulent tampering of the revenue record of original owners in order to confer undue pecuniary benefit upon beneficiaries and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves,” reads the statement.
The verification conducted revealed that mutation No. 689/Jeem was attested under section 121 of J&K Land Revenue Act covering land under khasra Nos. 918, 970, 994, 1024, 1623 & 1623 min at village Sunjwan, Tehsil Bahu, District Jammu on 27.03.2010 by then Tehsildar (settlement) Jammu, the official said.
The land measuring 15 Kanals 14 Marlas was registered on the name of beneficiary Mohammed Rashid and land measuring 69 kanals was registered on the name of beneficiary Mohammed Mushtaq and others.
Financial Commissioner, Revenue J&K vide order dated 26.09.2017 set aside the impugned mutation No. 689/jeem dated 27.03.2010 in question and directed to restore the entries which were existing prior to attestation of said mutation.
Further, as per Land Revenue Act, the attestation of mutation u/s 121 Land Revenue Act could be made only by settlement officer but in the instant case, the mutation was attested by then Tehsildar, Settlement which was beyond his powers.
The mutation in question was entered by then Patwari Halqa, Sunjwan when he was not posted in the said Patwar Halqa. The said mutation No. 689/jeen dated 27.03.2010 was also attested in violation of Para-9 of standing order No. 23-A, as the same mutation No. 689/jeem has already been attested in the year 2008 in the same village (i.e., two mutations having same serial nos. 689/jeem were attested in the years 2008 & 2010 in the same village). (Press Release)
