news details |
|
|
| HC directs sr AAG to file ATR, status of CB investigation into the case | | PIL on hushing up of Chatha-Sunjwan land scam | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 29: In a PIL on the alleged hushing up Chatha-Sunjwan land scam, a high court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today directed the senior AAG, appearing for GAD and revenue department, to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) into the March 13, 2015 inquiry report submitted by then divisional commissioner, Jammu, Shantmanu, who had held that khasra No 1442, measuring 20 kanals 12 marlas at Sunjwan, was actually the state land which was put to sale by the alleged tampering of records.
After hearing the counsels of petitioner, different departments and others, the bench directed the senior AAG to also file the latest status of the investigation already entrusted to crime branch (CB), Jammu, before the next date of hearing, ie March 28, 2016.
The petitioner's counsel drew the attention of the bench to the latest inquiry report filed by SDM, Jammu South, Shahid Mehmood, who was appointed as inquiry officer vide government order No 151-Rev(S)/of October 7, 2015 to enquire into the alienation of land measuring 724 kanals at Sunjwan to SRK Associates. Reading out the inquiry report, he pointed out that the inquiry officer had concluded that 257 kanals 14 marlas of land was Gair Mumkin Khad, 310 kanals 11 marlas was Gair Mumkin Jaar, 144 kanals 4 marlas was Banjar Qadeem and 12 kanals 16 marlas was Gair Mumkin Rasta, Gail, Chapri.
He submitted that the inquiry officer had concluded that most of the land in question being non-agricultural was out of the preview of Agrarian Reforms Act and Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. He submitted that the inquiry officer in para 7 had made some astonishing revelations that some patches of land which otherwise were not worth to be sold had been got alienated by means of sale deeds. The revenue officials who had issued Fard Intikhabs of such patches of land in favour of vendors and vendees and got that land alienated illegally were required to be prosecuted under law and they included Pritam Dass Bangotra and Baisakhi Ram, then Tehsildar Settlement, Jammu, Ghulam Nabi and Aslam Din, then Naib- Tehsildar, Bahu, Hazoor Hussain, then Girdawar, Tara Chand, Mohammad Latief, Mohan Singh and Iqbal Zargar, then patwaris in Patwar Halqa, Sunjwan.
Counsel for SRK Associates submitted that the inquiry officer had given a clean chit to the colonizer and had held that the land in question was a private land and being non-agricultural, the ceiling limit would not be applicable to such land. He said SRK Associates had been harassed and victimized for the last more than five years at the behest of some business rivals and the PIL in question was required to be closed. JDA had approved the building plan of SRK Associates way back in 2007 and for no valid reasons the builder was being put to irreparable loss, he added.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the building permission was obtained by SRK Associates fraudulently as no such permission was granted by BOCA of JDA as except then JDA VC, all other members of BOCA disassociated themselves from the decision so taken and apprised about their dissent to then JDA VC and accordingly Housing and Urban Development Department had kept in abeyance the building permission of SRK Associates on the advice of then Advocate General.
Despite that SRK Associates was encroaching the hillocks at the disputed site by using high tech machinery and this made DC, Jammu, to issue order No 143 DCJ on December 10, 2015 whereby he constituted a special demarcation team and imposed complete ban on all kinds of activities on the land falling between the ridge of Hill View Resort at Sunjwan and Chowadhi-Sunjwan boundary.
The bench directed the registry to tag the record of OWP No 1847/2015 with the instant PIL. At this stage, the senior AAG requested the bench that two writ petitions filed by SRK Associates, challenging the order of appointment of Sudhanshu Pandey as inquiry officer in 2008 and also the petition challenging his report, had been rendered infructuous in view of the subsequent developments in the PIL as various orders had been passed from time to time.
The bench, in view of the submissions made by the senior AAG, dismissed both the petitions with the observation that the same would not affect the petitioner before the civil court. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
