*Notice to State on 66,000 kanal un-demarcated land
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Apr 24: Taking serious note of inordinate delay on the part of Deputy Commissioners of six districts in providing record pertaining to the multi-crore Roshni land scam to the State Vigilance Organization, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar today directed the heads of these districts to furnish the revenue record within a period of two weeks.
In the case of encroachment on Jammu Development Authority (JDA) land in Gole Gujral area of Jammu district, the DB took serious note of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Jammu, Atul Goel’s refusal to provide necessary police force for the eviction of encroachments and passed severe strictures against him.
When the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled Prof S K Bhalla Versus State of J&K and Others came up for hearing, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmad appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of the Division Bench towards the status report filed by the Director Vigilance mentioning that requisite record pertaining to the land scam has not been received from the Deputy Commissioners of Jammu, Samba, Udhampur, Srinagar, Budgam and Pulwama districts.
In the status report, the Director Vigilance has mentioned that as desired by the State Vigilance Commission, the Vigilance Organization has initiated verification into the multi-crore Roshni scam and initially it has been decided to focus only on six districts—Jammu, Samba, Udhampur, Srinagar, Budgam and Pulwama. “Four Special Investigating Teams (SITs) each headed by the concerned branch SSPs of Vigilance Organization have been constituted for the purpose besides a nodal supervisory team has been constituted at headquarter level”, the report said.
The report, however, said that despite correspondence made to the Divisional Commissioners of Jammu and Kashmir for issuance of necessary instructions to the concerned Deputy Commissioners so that they promptly respond to the various queries and provide relevant record to the concerned branch SSPs of Vigilance, complete record has not been furnished till date.
Advocate Ahmad said, “these revenue officers earlier refused to cooperate with the Principal Accountant General during audit and now they are reluctant to provide record to the Vigilance Organization for obvious reasons”, adding “it seems that attempts are still being made to ensure that facts don’t come to the fore because of the involvement of senior officers and politicians in this multi-crore land scam”.
Taking serious note of inordinate delay on the part of six Deputy Commissioners in furnishing record to the Vigilance Organization, the DB directed the heads of these six districts to ensure furnishing of revenue record as per the requisition of the SITs within a period of two weeks from today.
Earlier, the DB fixed one week time but following intervention of Advocate General M I Qadri, two weeks time frame was granted particularly in view of involvement of Deputy Commissioners of Srinagar, Budgam and Pulwama in the Parliamentary elections.
The DB further directed the Deputy Commissioners of these districts to file compliance report by the adjourned date with a copy in advance to the counsel for the petitioner. “The Director Vigilance shall also file updated status report revealing the progress made during the intervening period”, the DB said.
In a case pertaining to the eviction of encroachments from the JDA land in Gole Gujral area, Advocate Ahmad drew the attention of the Division Bench towards a status report filed by the Vice-Chairperson of JDA.
He submitted that after completion of necessary requisite formalities like issuance of notices to the encroachers, the JDA approached the SSP Jammu for police protection to carry out eviction drive. However, the same was denied on the plea of Lok Sabha elections.
“Following no reply in writing from the SSP Jammu, a meeting was convened between Deputy Commissioner Jammu, SSP Jammu and JDA Vice-Chairperson at DC office and in this meeting SSP stated that police force is not available till election process is over in the State”, Advocate Ahmad said quoting the status report of JDA.
“This is just at the behest of those powerful persons, who want this encroachment to continue”, the counsel for the PIL said.
On this, Division Bench asked, “how SSP of any district can say this on behalf of entire police force”, adding “his statement indicates that anybody can do anything during elections and the police will remain mute spectator”. The DB further remarked, in the open court, “why impression is given that mafia is being protected”.
Finding the reply given by SSP Jammu as untenable, the DB said, “if the election process is taking place in one area of the State, the other areas cannot be left without law enforcing agencies”, adding “Advocate General, M I Qadri, who is present in the court, is requested to look into the statement as officer like SSP should not make such statement because it leads to unhealthy impression and encourage the mafia at various level”.
Directing that the request of JDA for police help must be responded in the right earnest so that effective steps could be taken for removal of encroachers, the DB directed the Deputy Commissioner Jammu to file status report in this regard. The DB also directed Chief Secretary to take notice of such like violations and direct the authorities concerned like SSP Jammu to maintain propriety of his office.
“Even otherwise we don’t appreciate the SSP to make a statement on behalf of the police in the whole State. We fail to understand who authorized him to make such a statement”, the DB said, adding “the Chief Secretary may also file a status report with regard to the stand of the SSP Jammu”.
About the Civil Miscellaneous Application vis-à-vis inordinate delay in demarcation of over 66,000 kanals of land transferred to JDA, the DB issued notice to the State, which was accepted by Additional Advocate General, H A Siddiqui.
About the disclosure of moveable and immovable assets by the officers/officials of the JDA as per its earlier directions, the DB observed, “as per the counsel for the PIL, some officers have complied with the directions by filing affidavits before the Registrar Judicial”, adding “however, there is no complete compliance and by next date of hearing complete compliance report has to be filed”.
The DB also directed the Chief Secretary to ensure compliance of this order.
Follow our WhatsApp channel