An ongoing Special Investigating Team inquiry into more than 5,000 missing mutation files will continue after the Calcutta High Court rejected appeals by persons who were not parties to the original writ petitions.
Justices Ravi Krishan Kapur and Supratim Bhattacharya, sitting at the Circuit Bench in Jalpaiguri, found no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision to require a specialised criminal investigation.
“The facts of this case reveal that there are serious allegations of fraud and interpolation of land records in the Office of the respondent no. 4.”
— Unnumbered paragraph
Why it matters. The order prevents an affected outsider from using an appeal to impose premature finality on a public-interest investigation. The filing of an earlier charge-sheet did not close the larger inquiry into missing government records, suspect mutations or possible official collusion.
Five thousand files missing
The writ petitioners complained that names had been removed from Records of Rights through fake conveyances. A committee constituted by the Single Judge found more than 5,000 mutation files missing from the office of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Rajganj, along with numerous wrongful entries and illegally initiated mutation cases.
The Single Judge asked the Inspector General, North Bengal, to create an SIT of senior police officers. The team was to register an FIR on the complaint, examine whether the former land officer and head clerk had acted with the alleged offenders, and carry the investigation to its legal conclusion.
The appellants, who had not been parties to the writ proceedings, argued that an FIR and charge-sheet already filed before the authorities should prevent further investigation against them in relation to the missing records. The State told the appellate court that the SIT inquiry was still underway and had never been stayed.
The judgment
The Division Bench held that the appellants could not claim injury merely from a direction requiring lawful investigation. With the inquiry unfinished, intervention would delay rather than resolve the allegations. Public interest favoured allowing the investigators to complete their work.
Both appeals and all connected applications were dismissed. The SIT and State authorities were told to act expeditiously. The order decides neither criminal liability nor the accuracy of individual land entries; those questions remain with the continuing investigation and any ensuing proceedings.
“The appellant cannot be aggrieved by any such directions.”
— Unnumbered paragraph
“The State authorities and in particular the SIT are directed to act expeditiously in terms of the impugned order.”
— Unnumbered paragraph