AI generated image. For indicative purpose only
Dharamshala, Feb 12,
Former Chief Secretary named; Complaint alleges ‘Procedural Fraud’ in Palampur Section 118 case.
A supplementary complaint has been filed before the Chief Minister and the Lokayukta alleging deliberate suppression of official records in the long-pending Palampur land matter linked to Section 118 proceedings under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.
The 21-page representation, dated February 10, 2026, has been submitted by Anoop Dutta of Dharamshala. It names former Chief Secretary and then Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue), and Joint Secretary (Revenue-B), alleging “suppression of material facts before the Lokayukta and submission of misleading reports in Complaint No. 39/2023-1(A) Loka.”
Also read: Non-agriculturist Manch seeks relaxation in sec 118
The complaint asserts that during the pendency of Lokayukta Complaint, “deliberate concealment of material documents” took place. It states that Annexure R-6, which should have contained “276 pages of official SDM Palampur inquiry record (No. 2420/SDP dated 05.12.2002) and DC Kangra letter dated 08.01.2003,” was furnished with “only 4 pages instead of 276 pages,” allegedly concealing the Agreement dated 03.07.2002 and related documents.
Describing the alleged omission as “procedural fraud,” the representation claims it amounted to “abuse of official position” and a “colourable exercise of power.” It further alleges that the July 3, 2002 agreement lawfully transferred possession and management rights of the land to the complainant and that authorities had prior knowledge of the agreement in official records. The subsequent administrative actions, the complaint states, “ignored and suppressed this agreement.”
The representation also revisits events of July 2002, alleging “illegal custody at Palampur Police Station,” “forced compromise under duress,” and “abduction and forced signatures on blank papers.” It refers to FIR No. 409/2002 at Police Station Patiala, which ended in an untraceable report, and FIR No. 97/2003 at Police Station Dharamshala, alleging “fabrication of witnesses,” “tampering of site plan,” and suppression of Daily Diary entries.
On constitutional grounds, the complaint cites alleged violations of Articles 14, 21, 300-A, and 301, asserting “unlawful deprivation of lawful possession in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.” It also relies on Supreme Court judgments, including Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) and State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2011).
Among the reliefs sought are cancellation of the disputed Section 118 permission, recovery and verification of original records, a time-bound independent inquiry, and initiation of departmental and criminal proceedings against officials allegedly involved.
No official statement had been issued by the officers named in the complaint at the time of filing this report. The matter is stated to be pending consideration before the Lokayukta and other constitutional authorities.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.