Model: the enquiry report

“Deputy Collector will enquire and report” is the commonest single sentence a probationer receives from the Collector’s peshi. The companion page in the drafting section covers how to conduct the enquiry; this page is the specimen of the report itself. The same skeleton serves an administrative enquiry (a land grievance, a scheme complaint, an allegation against an official) and, with its evidentiary parts strengthened, a magisterial enquiry ordered under the Collector’s or Government’s instructions — the structure below is drawn as an administrative land enquiry, with notes on the magisterial variant.

When you need this

The Collector marks a petition or a vardi to you with an ordering memo; Government calls for a report through the Collector; or a situation (a public clash, a scheme irregularity, an official’s conduct) needs an arm’s-length fact-finding before anyone decides anything. Your product is a report — not an order. Nothing you write disposes of anything; everything you write must let the ordering authority dispose of it safely.

The model

ENQUIRY REPORT

From
   [NAME OF OFFICER], Deputy Collector [DESIGNATION/ATTACHMENT],
   [STATION].
To
   The District Collector, [DISTRICT].

Rc.No. [FILE NO.]/[YEAR], dated [DATE]

Sub:  Enquiry into the complaint of [NAME OF COMPLAINANT] and others of
      [NAME OF VILLAGE] village alleging encroachment of the tank bund
      and shikam of [NAME OF TANK] in Sy.No. [SY.NO.] and inaction of
      the local revenue staff — report — submitted.

Ref:  Memo Rc.No. [MEMO NO.]/[YEAR] dated [DATE] of the District
      Collector, [DISTRICT].

                              *  *  *

I.  AUTHORITY AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. Under the memo cited, the undersigned was directed to enquire and
   report on: (i) whether the tank bund and shikam of [NAME OF TANK] in
   Sy.No. [SY.NO.] of [NAME OF VILLAGE] have been encroached, and if
   so, by whom and to what extent; (ii) whether any entries in the
   village records have been altered to support the occupation; and
   (iii) whether the local revenue staff failed to act on earlier
   complaints. The report is confined to these three points.

II. BACKGROUND

2. [NAME OF TANK] is a minor irrigation source with a registered
   ayacut of about Ac. [EXTENT]. The complaint dated [DATE], signed by
   [NUMBER] residents, alleges that [NAME OF ALLEGED ENCROACHER] has
   levelled part of the bund, brought about Ac. [EXTENT] of the shikam
   under cultivation, and that complaints to the mandal office since
   [MONTH/YEAR] produced no action.

III. COURSE OF THE ENQUIRY

3. Notices dated [DATE] were issued to the complainants, to [NAME OF
   ALLEGED ENCROACHER], and to the [DESIGNATIONS OF STAFF CONCERNED],
   fixing the enquiry at [PLACE] on [DATE]; notice was also published
   in the village by beat of drum on [DATE]. Proof of service is at
   Annexure I.

4. Hearings were held on [DATES]. [NUMBER] witnesses were examined and
   their signed statements recorded (Annexure II). The spot was
   inspected on [DATE] in the presence of both parties and two panch
   witnesses; a panchanama (Annexure III) and a site sketch prepared
   with the Mandal Surveyor (Annexure IV) were drawn up at the spot.
   The relevant records — pahani extracts for [FASLI YEARS], the tank
   memoir extract, and the mandal office complaint register — were
   obtained and are marked Exhibits R-1 to R-[N] (list at Annexure V).

IV. EVIDENCE

5. Oral: The complainants' witnesses [SUMMARY BY NAME — e.g. PW-1, an
   ayacutdar, states that the bund cut appeared in [YEAR] and
   cultivation began the following season]. [NAME OF ALLEGED
   ENCROACHER] states that the land he cultivates is his patta land in
   the adjoining Sy.No. [SY.NO.] and denies touching the shikam. The
   [STAFF CONCERNED] state that [SUBSTANCE].

6. Documentary: The pahani for fasli [YEAR] (Ex. R-2) shows Sy.No.
   [SY.NO.] classified as shikam with no cultivation entry; the pahani
   for fasli [YEAR] (Ex. R-3) shows a crop entry of [CROP] against the
   same number without any order supporting it. The complaint register
   (Ex. R-5) shows entries dated [DATES] marked to [DESIGNATION]
   without further noting.

7. Spot: The panchanama and sketch record a fresh cut in the bund of
   about [LENGTH] metres, cultivation of about Ac. [EXTENT] within the
   FTL-marked spread, and a pump-set drawing from the tank; measured
   with reference to survey stones [NUMBERS] by the Mandal Surveyor.

V.  DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

8. Point (i): The sketch places the cultivated block within Sy.No.
   [SY.NO.] (shikam), not the adjoining patta number; the encroacher's
   own pump-set stands inside the tank spread. Finding: the bund and
   about Ac. [EXTENT] of shikam are encroached by [NAME], from about
   [SEASON/YEAR]. 

9. Point (ii): The crop entry in Ex. R-3 is unsupported by any
   mutation, order or enquiry, and the officer who wrote it could not
   point to one. Finding: the entry is unauthorised; who procured it
   cannot be determined on the present evidence, and I say so rather
   than speculate.

10. Point (iii): The complaint register shows [NUMBER] complaints over
    [PERIOD] marked but never enquired. The explanation of the staff —
    [SUBSTANCE] — is not borne out by the register. Finding: there was
    failure to act on complaints from [DATE] onwards.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

11. It is for the Collector to take a decision; the undersigned
    respectfully recommends: (a) action for removal of the encroachment
    and restoration of the bund through the Tahsildar under the
    applicable land and irrigation laws, after due notice; (b)
    correction of the unauthorised pahani entry through the competent
    authority under the record-of-rights framework; and (c) such
    disciplinary action as deemed fit against [DESIGNATION] for the
    inaction found at para 10, after due process.

12. The records received are returned herewith; the annexure and
    exhibit list is at Annexure V.

                                             [SIGNATURE]
                                             ([NAME OF OFFICER])
                                             Deputy Collector,
                                             [STATION]
Annexures: I — Service proofs. II — Statements ([NUMBER] leaves).
III — Panchanama. IV — Site sketch. V — List of exhibits.

Anatomy — why each part is there

1. The From/To and reference block. A report is correspondence, not proceedings: it travels upward on the file that ordered it, cites the ordering memo, and decides nothing. Getting the instrument right matters — an enquiry officer who issues “orders” has exceeded the reference before the first finding.
2. Terms of reference, restated and numbered (para 1). The single most protective paragraph in the document. Restating the reference in your own numbered points fixes the enquiry’s boundary: everything after it answers points (i)–(iii) and nothing else. The closing sentence — “confined to these three points” — is what lets you decline, on the record, the twenty collateral grievances the hearings will surface.
3. Background kept to one paragraph (para 2). Enough for a reader who has not seen the complaint; no more. The background is the one section where over-writing is common and useless — the evidence sections carry the weight.
4. The course-of-enquiry section (paras 3–4). Natural justice, proved: notices by date, publication by dandora, proof of service annexed, hearings dated, statements signed, spot inspection with panchas and surveyor. When the person your findings hurt attacks the report, this is the section that gets attacked first — an enquiry that condemned someone unheard is worthless however right its conclusions.
5. Evidence in three registers — oral, documentary, spot (paras 5–7). Statements summarised by name so each can be checked against Annexure II; documents cited by exhibit mark so the deciding authority can lay hands on each; the spot spoken to through the panchanama and the surveyor’s sketch, because in land enquiries the ground outranks the papers. Keeping evidence separate from discussion is the craft point: a reader must be able to see what the material was before seeing what you made of it.
6. Findings, point by point, evidence cited (paras 8–10). Each term of reference gets its own finding, each finding names the evidence it rests on, and para 9 models the most underrated sentence in enquiry writing: where the evidence does not permit a conclusion, saying so plainly. A guessed finding infects the credible ones around it.
7. Recommendations fenced into their own section (para 11). Findings are yours; the decision is the Collector’s. The section is labelled, prefaced with “it is for the Collector to decide”, and phrased as recommendations for processes (removal after notice, correction through the competent authority, disciplinary action after due process) — not as verdicts. A report that orders in the guise of recommending invites the reply that the enquiry officer exceeded the reference, and gives the affected party a bias argument for free.
8. The annexure system. Service proofs, statements, panchanama, sketch, exhibit list: the report is only the visible part of a file, and it is the file that gets tested. A report whose every citation resolves to an annexure is nearly impossible to dislodge; one that cites documents nobody can find is dislodged by that fact alone.
9. The magisterial variant. Where the enquiry is magisterial — deaths in police action, custodial matters under the BNSS ss.194–196 frame, firing enquiries ordered by Government — the same skeleton holds, with three reinforcements: witness statements recorded with the formality of the power you summon under, the scene inspected and documented as an inquest would be, and the report addressed to the authority that ordered it (DM or Government) with its confidentiality respected. The separation of findings from recommendations matters even more, because criminal proceedings may run alongside.

Adaptation traps

• Answering a question you were not asked. Findings beyond the terms of reference are not bonus work; they are findings reached without jurisdiction and without notice to those they affect, and they can contaminate the valid ones.
• The narrative report. A chronological story — “then I visited the village, then the parties argued” — with conclusions dissolved through it forces the Collector to re-do your analysis. The section headings in the model are not decoration; they are the analysis.
• Findings resting on unrecorded material. What the MPDO told you on the phone, what “the village generally says” — if it is not a signed statement, a marked exhibit or a panchanama, it cannot carry a finding. Enquire again rather than found a conclusion on air.
• Recommending the punishment instead of the process. “The Deputy Tahsildar may be suspended” is a decision dressed as a recommendation, and it will be quoted against the eventual disciplinary order as prejudgment. Recommend consideration of action after due process; name the conduct, not the sentence.
• Sitting on it. An enquiry report ages badly: crops get harvested, records get “corrected”, witnesses drift. If the reference gives a deadline, meet it; if it does not, set your own and note interim progress to the ordering authority — silence reads as either difficulty or capture.

An illustrative skeleton for learning — always draft from the current Act, Rules and standing instructions, and have your first drafts settled by your senior.