Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 3: Special Judge CBI Court RK Wattal has directed reinvestigation in the case relating to illegal possession and encroachment of land involving former MLA Kanta Andotra and the then Chairperson of an educational trust based at Kathua and Ravinder Singh, the then Patwari Muthi Hardo and granted four months time.
This case was registered on the complaint of CBI officer Vikas Renot, Sub Inspector ACB Jammu on the basis of the preliminary enquiry done by him on some source information to the effect that a huge land of J&K Government /Forest Department in district Kathua was encroached upon by some unscrupulous elements in violation of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and in connivance with Revenue and Forest officers.
It was alleged in the complaint that Revenue officials of Kathua entered into criminal conspiracy with R B Educational Trust Kathua allowing the trust to retain the land beyond 100 kanals ceiling limit provided under Agrarian Reforms Act and a case under Section 120-B read with 218, 409 RPC and Section 5(2) read with 5 (1) (c) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 came to be registered under FIR No. RC0042020A0005 against the Trust through its Chairperson, Ajay Singh, the then DC Kathua, Avtar Singh, the then Tehsildar Marheen, Des Raj, the then Naib Tehsildar Chhan Arorian Tehsil Marheen, Ram Paul, the then Girdwar, Sudesh Kumar, the then Patwari and other unknown persons.
It was alleged in the FIR that the Kanta Andotra acquired land in excess of the ceiling limit of 100 standard Kanals in violation of Section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and accused Ajay Singh got the wrong calculation of land done and a false affidavit was also sworn before the High Court to mislead the court and to give benefit to the trust allowing it to retain excess land.
After the registration of the case investigation was done, the evidence was collected the enquiry report was also collected and it was found that supplementary trust deed dated 16.04.2008 and 09.12.2017 were registered with family members of accused as its members.
After hearing both the sides, Special Judge CBI R K Wattal observed, “in absence of any order under Section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act it cannot be said that the person who is guilty of holding the land in excess of the ceiling area has committed the offence under ordinary penal or special provisions”.
“Moreover, a distinction has to be made between the voluntary acquisition of land and the involuntary occupation of the same as regards the unit to fix the liability under law for the trust or its functionaries”, the court said, adding “in the instant case as per the letter dated 05.03.2013 under No. DCK/ARA/2012-13/503-04 issued by Deputy Commissioner Kathua notice has been issued to the accused as Chairperson of the trust on the direction in PIL of 19/2011 after a report was sought from the Tehsildar Hiranagar”.
This notice was challenged before the High Court on the ground of competency and jurisdiction of DC Kathua who accepted the objections where after the case was transferred to ACR Kathua for passing of fresh order. However, no order conclusively and finally was passed by ACR Kathua or the Government under the Act so as to attract the penalty provisions.
“Thus question will arise whether the provisions of P C Act should be invoked directly suo moto holding that violation of Section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act is violation of PC Act 1988 when no such order in fact has been passed as yet by Collector/ACR competent to pass such order and take action under Agrarian Reforms Act”, the court said, adding “there are several points which call for an appropriate answer after a thorough probe”.
“It has to be ascertained as to whether the reporting or attestation has been done with ulterior motives against the monitory consideration or bungling or illegal act done by the accused working concurrently for same period in their respective field”, the court said, adding “the matter requires further probe at par with the investigation which has already been ordered against the officers who have allegedly filed false affidavit before the High Court and also till the final decision is made by the Collector the competent officer having jurisdiction to pass order under S14 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1978”.
Accordingly, court ordered re-investigation on all the aspects and granted four months time for probe under the supervision of SP CBI concerned.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel