and apparently it was a deed of relinquishment of impersonation and specific allegation is made by the complainant against his own father, who has been arraigned as accused No.2. It is important to note that accused No.2, who is father of the petitioner and who is the beneficiary under the relinquishment deed is no more and accused Nos.3 and 4, who have also got the very same property by mutating the same are facing the criminal trial. This Court has already pointed out that as on the date of creation of the relinquishment deed, the petitioner was not in India, but on the date of mutating the property in his favour on 01.01.2013, he was very much present in India. Apart from that, when the mutation records are called for to prove before this Court, this Court also taken note of the fact that mutation proceedings was taken place based on the personal letter and this Court also wanted to know whether the petitioner has given personal letter, called the records and in a suspicious manner the record was missing and hence the proceedings was initiated against the concerned officials in a criminal proceedings as well as departmental enquiry. When such material is available on record, the very contention of the petitioner that he is innocent and he is not involved in such transfer cannot be accepted, since
