Naib Tehsildar’s Two-Increment Cut Stands After He Failed to Show 310 Sale Deeds Were in Licensed Colonies: P&H HC

The petitioner, a Naib Tehsildar posted in Gurugram, registered 310 sale deeds between February and July 2020.

Following a preliminary inquiry, he was charged with registering deeds without obtaining the required concurrence/NOC under Section 7-A of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975.

A regular inquiry report dated 14 March 2022 found the charges proved, and an order dated 28 October 2022 imposed stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

The petitioner later challenged a further punishment order dated 29 January 2026, arguing, among other things, that the land was recorded as “gair mumkin” and that NOC was not required.

The State opposed the petition, including on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the inquiry report or the earlier order.

Section 7-A of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, as amended in 2017, provides an exception to the NOC requirement for “gair mumkin” land only where it is situated in a colony licensed under Section 3 and the colony’s layout plan is submitted with the registration application.

The Court also relied on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar (Law Finder Doc ID 135575; other citation details not provided), observing that where the legality or fairness of an inquiry is not challenged, a court should be reluctant to interfere with the disciplinary authority’s findings or the punishment.

The Court held that the petition was liable to fail because the petitioner had not challenged either the inquiry report or the earlier punishment order, while seeking to challenge only the 29 January 2026 order.

On the merits, the petitioner’s assertion that the land was “gair mumkin” did not by itself establish exemption from the NOC requirement: he had not shown that the deeds concerned land in a licensed colony or that the required layout plan had been submitted.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the disciplinary finding that the statutory requirements had not been met.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.