'Intolerable': MP High Court On Additional Collector "Waving" At It Envelope Containing Collector's Letter For Personal Exemption
Sebin James
29 July 2024 10:18 AM GMT
Madhya Pradesh High Court has come down heavily on the Narmadapuram District Collector for writing a letter directly addressed to the court seeking personal exemption from appearance in a land matter related to mutation of names.
“This envelop contains a letter, written by Collector, Narmadapuram directly to the Court, seeking exemption from personal appearance. This conduct of Collector, Narmadapuram is unpardonable…”, the bench at Jabalpur initially noted.
The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia also didn't take lightly the conduct of the Additional District Collector who stood up and waved a brown envelope containing the said letter in open court, when the state's counsel was already making submissions for the Collector's exemption.
“….Shri Devendra Kumar Singh, Additional Collector, Narmadapuram was under an impression that since it is a letter written by Collector directly addressing to the Court, therefore, the Court will be very much impressed and will succumb to the letter written by the Collector, Narmadapuram”, the court made strict remarks about the conduct of officers.
The state's counsel had submitted that the Collector, Ms. Sonia Meena, couldn't appear in person on 26.07.2024 owing to some natural calamities in her jurisdiction.
After rebuking the officers, the court asked the District Collector to be personally present at 4 pm on the same day to explain why she had written a letter directly addressed to the court. The court also asked the Collector for an explanation regarding the conduct of the Additional District Collector in the open court, despite the instructions given by the office of the Advocate General. Incidentally, the court took the letter on record and made it part of the record.
“The envelope was in an open condition. Thus, it is clear that the same must have been shown by Shri Devendra Kumar Singh, Additional Collector, Narmadapuram to the Law Officers of the State and they must have instructed him not to place on record….”, the court opined.
The court also made a prima facie observation that the Tahsildar, Seoni Malwa, and the Narmadapuram Additional Collector 'deliberately misconstrued' the order passed by the High Court in the connected matter of MP No.972/2021. The impugned order of Tahsildar was wrong due to the non-joinder of necessary parties who are legal representatives of the deceased, the court had held in MP No.972/2021.
In the order dated 25.09.2023, the court specifically asked all the parties to appear before the Tahsildar who could then decide the application afresh as per a compromise decree in a civil suit from 1976, that was not considered before. The court had also stated that the parties are not entitled to anything except what has been stipulated in the said compromise decree. However, after the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar based on the court order in MP 972/2021, instead of deciding the aspect of mutation alone, an order to partition the properties was directed by the Tahsildar. This order was upheld in appeal by the Additional Collector without assigning satisfactory reasons. These revenue court orders have been challenged in the current petition by one of the beneficiaries of the compromise decree.
On 25.07.2024, the court directed the District Collector to be personally present on the following day to explain the allegations made by petitioner against the Tahsildar and Additional District Collector.
On 26.07.2024, when the court resumed the hearing at 4 pm, the Collector didn't turn up and the single bench reserved the orders in the matter after warning the state's officers again. On 25.07.2024, the court didn't hesitate to mention how surprising it was that the Government Advocate couldn't contact the District Collector.
Advocate Siddharth Gulatee appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Ishteyaq Husain appeared for Respondent No.6. Dy. Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly and Dy. Government Advocate Swati Aseem George represented the state.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Agarwal v. Nitin Agarwal & Ors.
Case No: MP No. 2213 of 2024
