Garhwal Post Bureau
Dehradun, 29 Jul: District Magistrate Savin Bansal has suspended Kanungo (Revenue Inspector) Rahul Dev with immediate effect for insubordination and deliberate delay lasting several years, in discharging official duties. The action has sparked unease across the administrative ranks. The decision has drawn considerable attention within bureaucratic circles, with several officials now apprehensive about facing similar disciplinary action for long-pending matters.
The matter surfaced during a recently held public hearing by DM Savin Bansal at which a Gandhi Road resident, Ravindra Singh, approached him with a complaint concerning a land dispute under Section 28. Singh complained that the then Collector had passed an order in his favour on 16 May 2018, which had duly been received by the tehsil office. The file, however, was inexplicably held up for several years and was only entered in R-6 by the concerned Revenue Kanungo in 2023, five years after the original directive. Subsequently, in December 2023, the case was forwarded to Kanungo, Majra, for map correction and implementation, but despite repeated follow-ups and visits to the tehsil office by the complainant, the matter has remained unresolved.
District Magistrate Bansal, on examining the sequence of events, concluded that the delay constituted wilful negligence and defiance of official orders by the revenue officials concerned. He instructed the Tehsildar, Sadar, to prepare a file in this regard recommending suspension of the Kanungo concerned. Following this, Bansal today passed the suspension order against Rahul Dev, signalling a zero-tolerance stance of top Dehradun administration against procedural laxity.
It may be reminded there that prolonged pendency in land-related cases often becomes a breeding ground for disputes and litigation, with numerous instances wherein complainants are compelled to approach district courts or even higher judiciary for resolution. Such delays not only create hardships for citizens but also reflect poorly on institutional accountability. The Section 28 order in this case, which pertains to rectification and update of revenue records, carries legal sanctity, and its non-compliance could have serious implications for rightful ownership claims.
The suspension of a revenue officer over a 2018 order has reignited discussion on the efficacy of internal monitoring mechanisms and the need for prompt action on legal directives.
