*Seeks action plan before June 10 for necessary orders
Mohinder Verma JAMMU, May 6: The non-serious approach of the Government towards encroachment on 20 lakh kanal State land across Jammu and Kashmir today came under sharp criticism from the Division Bench of High Court comprising Justice Hasnain Masoodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal, which has given time till June 10 for evolving and submitting action plan for evicting the encroachers. On the basis of this action plan, the High Court would pass necessary orders on next date of hearing for restoration of land to the State. Moreover, the latest status report of the Director, State Vigilance Organization into the much-publicized Roshni land scam has failed to convince the High Court as there was only jugglery of words in the report without any mention about the action taken in the proved cases. Now, the High Court has sought FIR wise details for passing appropriate orders vis-à-vis action against the involved officers and officials. When the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled Prof S K Bhalla Versus State of J&K and Others came up for hearing, Division Bench, in the open court, sought to know the basic issue highlighted in the PIL. On this, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the petitioner informed the court that the basic issue was regarding encroachment on 20 lakh kanal State land, which was revealed by none else than the Government itself on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. “On this issue, the Division Bench then headed by former Chief Justice M M Kumar had directed the State to divulge the names of the encroachers and subsequently 13 volumes containing the names of land grabbers in all the districts of the State were submitted to this court”, Advocate Ahmed said. He, however, added that there was no action from the Government side on eviction of encroachers from huge chunk of land. “The action is being delayed as several influential persons having the backing of politicians, bureaucrats and senior police officers are the encroachers”, the counsel for the petitioner said in the open court, adding “the non-initiation of action on the part of the Government is nothing else but contempt of this court”. Expressing deep anguish over failure of the Government to evict the encroachers, Division Bench, in the open, directed the State to come out with a proposal/action plan for removal of encroachment. “On perusal of said action plan, we will issue effective orders for removal of encroachment from such a huge chunk of land”, the DB said while directing that action plan shall be evolved and submitted to the High Court before next date of hearing—June 10, 2015. About another important aspect of PIL—abuse of Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act popularly known as Roshni Scheme, Advocate Ahmed said, “there seems to be no intention to take action against officers and officials, who for pecuniary and other benefits conferred ownership rights on the illegal occupants of the State land in blatant violation of the Roshni Scheme”. He further said, “the action is being delayed because some sharks including IAS officers are involved and all out efforts are being made to save their skin”. While expressing anguish over the latest status report filed by Director, State Vigilance Organization, the DB said, “this status report only contains narration of facts and events without detailing the action taken”, adding “a bare look at the report reveals that in few cases the investigation has been concluded and matter submitted to the competent authority for accord of sanction”. “However, sanction is being delayed in the name of giving opportunity of being heard to the accused officers and officials”, the DB observed, adding “the respondents are expected to realize that as per the law laid down in Subramaniam Swamy’s case, the accused would not have a right to be heard while the competent authority accord consideration to grant or otherwise of the sanction for prosecution of the accused”. “All that is required to be seen is whether material collected by the investigating officer constitutes an offence within the meaning of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act”, the DB further said, adding “in case FIR No.15 and 16 of 2014 registered with Police Station, Vigilance Organization Jammu, the investigation stands concluded and the matter stands submitted to the Government for accord of sanction”. The DB further said: This apart, the report does not give us idea about the date when investigation is concluded, matter submitted to the competent authority and the period for which matter has been awaiting consideration of the competent authority to accord sanction. The report gives an impression that the authority competent to accord sanction is avoiding to take decision and is keen to laying a route to all those found involved in the alleged scam. With these observations, the Division Bench directed State Vigilance Organization to file a comprehensive status report by next date of hearing. “The report must give an exact date of conclusion of the investigation, submission of files to the competent authority to accord sanction and the period for which the matter is lying with the authority without any decision so that effective orders are passed in the matter”, the DB further directed. About the issue regarding demarcation of land transferred to the JDA by the Revenue Department from time to time, the DB observed, “on December 10, 2014 the respondents were directed to demarcate the JDA land as per the schedule fixed in this regard but order has not been fully complied with”, adding “the Vice-Chairman of JDA as well as Deputy Commissioner Jammu are directed to ensure compliance of the order by next date of hearing—June 10, 2015”. In the Miscellaneous Application seeking retrieval of excess land from R B Educational Trust (family trust of Ch Lal Singh, Minister for Health and Medical Education), the DB issued notices to Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner (Home), Commissioner Secretary GAD, Commissioner Secretary Revenue, Divisional Commissioner Jammu, Director General of Police and State Vigilance Organization. The notices were accepted in the open court by Senior Additional Advocate Generals, Seema Shekhar and S S Nanda and AAG L K Moza on behalf of State functionaries. Earlier, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed along with Advocates Irfaan Khan, Rahul Raina and Suraj Singh appearing for the petitioner submitted that matter regarding retrieval of excess land from R B Educational Trust was delayed by S P Rakwal, the then Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Kathua by adjourning the matter on several dates without substantial progress. “Disciplinary action is required to be initiated against him for favouring Ch Lal Singh”, they added.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel