SIT probe into 5,000 missing land-record files and alleged fraud to continue; Calcutta High Court refuses to interfere

The writ petitioners alleged unlawful deletion of names from Records of Rights through forged conveyances.

After passing several orders, the Learned Single Judge constituted a Committee to inquire into the allegations.

The inquiry revealed that more than 5,000 mutation-related files were missing from the office of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Rajganj, along with wrongful entries in the Records of Rights, illegally initiated mutation proceedings, and disappearance of official records.

Finding the matter serious enough to warrant further investigation and criminal proceedings, the Learned Single Judge directed the Inspector General, North Bengal, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (“SIT”), register an FIR on the basis of the existing complaint, investigate the alleged offences and possible collusion of concerned officials, and bring the investigation to its logical conclusion.

The present appeals were filed by persons who were not parties to the writ petition.

The appellants contended that, since an FIR and charge-sheet had already been filed, no further investigation concerning the missing files should continue.

The State informed the appellate court that the SIT investigation was continuing despite there being no stay, embargo, or restraint against it.

Whether a non-party to the writ petition could challenge the Learned Single Judge’s direction constituting an SIT to investigate alleged fraud, interpolation of land records, and disappearance of official files.

Whether the existence of an FIR and charge-sheet precluded or justified interference with the continuing SIT investigation directed by the Learned Single Judge.

Whether the directions for SIT investigation warranted appellate interference in light of the seriousness of the allegations and public interest involved.

The Court applied the principle that appellate interference with a discretionary judicial order is unwarranted where the order is lawful, reasoned, and supported by the factual circumstances.

It further applied the principle that serious allegations of fraud, manipulation of public land records, disappearance of official files, and possible official collusion may justify an independent or specialised investigation.

The Court also proceeded on the basis that the mere filing of an FIR or charge-sheet does not, by itself, create a bar against a further or continuing investigation where the competent court has directed such investigation and no stay or restraint is operating.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the Committee’s inquiry had disclosed extensive irregularities, including the disappearance of over 5,000 files, wrongful entries in the Records of Rights, and allegedly illegal mutation proceedings.

These circumstances constituted sufficient justification for the Learned Single Judge to direct an SIT investigation into the alleged offences and the possible involvement of public officials.

The appellants, being non-parties to the writ proceedings, could not demonstrate any legally cognisable prejudice merely from the continuation of an investigation into serious allegations concerning public records.

The Court also noted that the SIT investigation had not reached finality and that it was continuing without any stay or legal embargo.

Consequently, the filing of an FIR and charge-sheet did not render the SIT direction infirm or require the appellate court to halt the investigation.

The Court characterised the challenge as an attempt to procrastinate the investigation and held that there was no valid ground for appellate interference, particularly having regard to the public interest involved.

The State authorities, particularly the SIT, were directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the impugned order.