Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Feb 19: Taking serious note of failure of the State to take decision on the communication of the Vigilance Commissioner regarding alleged encroachment of State land by the Member of Parliament Ch Lal Singh, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Hasnain Massodi today gave time till March 12, 2013 for passing orders and directed that in case of non-compliance the Secretary of General Administration Department (GAD) will have to appear in person on next date of hearing. The DB also declined the plea of Ch Lal Singh’s counsels seeking directions to debar the news-papers from covering the observations of the court and made it clear that it will not pass any such order as far as open court proceedings are concerned.
When the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting encroachment of land by politicians and bureaucrats in connivance with the land mafia came up for hearing, Advocate General M I Qaidri along with Senior Additional Advocate General Gagan Basotra and Additional Advocate General H A Sadiqui submitted that in compliance to the earlier order, the State has filed Action Taken Report/Status Report.
After going through the Action Taken Report/Status Report, the DB said, “in the last order we had asked the State to apprise the Court as to what decision was taken on the communication of Commissioner of Vigilance but still the question remains unanswered”, adding “we had asked the State to decide the matter one way or the other by passing appropriate orders but compliance of the order has not been ensured in letter and spirit”.
“It is surprising that instead of taking decision on the Vigilance Commissioner’s report dated April 24, 2006, it is now submitted that response of the Revenue Department to the representation of the petitioner dated September 29, 2012 addressed to the Chief Secretary, is still awaited”, the DB said, adding “moreover it is submitted by the Government counsels that despite furnishing of photocopies of necessary documents relating to Vigilance Commissioner’s communication dated April 24, 2006, the efforts to locate the letter in Chief Minister’s Secretariat have not yielded any fruitful results till date”.
Pointing towards the documents appended with the status report, the DB said, “on one side it is stated that final report from the Revenue Department is awaited and on the other side it is submitted that there are no encroachments on the State land under question in the instant petition”, adding “this contradicts the stand taken by the State. The fact remains that no final decision has been taken in the matter by disposing of Vigilance Commissioner’s communication to the Principal Secretary to Chief Minister dated April 24, 2006”.
As the Government counsels failed to give specific and satisfactory reply to the queries raised by the court, the Division Bench remarked, “if the State continues to adopt such an attitude despite explicit directions we will be left with no other option but to call the senior officers, who are competent to deal with the Vigilance Commissioner’s report dated April 24, 2006”.
In the meantime, Senior Advocate D C Raina with Advocate Ashish Singh Kotwal appearing on behalf of Ch Lal Singh questioned the intentions of the State to file correct reply and felt some foul play to tarnish the image of the Member of Parliament. They reiterated that State land referred to in the petition was not under the possession of Member of Parliament. They also urged the DB to restrain the media from ‘bit-by-bit’ reporting of the Court proceedings.
However, the plea was rejected by the Division Bench with Chief Justice saying: “This is an open court. Neither we have permitted the media-persons to report the proceedings nor stopped them. We will not pass any order vis-à-vis which order of the court has to be reported or not by the media”, adding “even in the open court hearings in the Supreme Court the observations of Judges are published that too in quotes and un-quotes”.
“Our intensions are not to harm anybody but to ensure that rule of law is upheld and confidence of the people is restored in the administration of justice”, the Chief Justice added.
Advocates Verinder Bhat and Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the petitioner submitted, “RB Educational Trust run by Member of Parliament Ch Lal Singh owns 316 kanals and 17 marlas of land as per the information disclosed by Tehsildar Hiranagar in an RTI application filed by the petitioner Prof S K Bhalla and this land is excess to the ceiling fixed under Section 14 read with Clause-A of Sub-Section 2 of Section 4 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 where under an individual or member of a family or Dharamshalla or public trust can have land only to the total extent of 182 kanals”, adding “RB Trust has land exceeding the ceiling fixed under the Act and the excess land is required to be recovered so that the same vests in the State”. They further submitted that reference in this regard has been made in the report of the Vigilance Commissioner dated April 24, 2006.
On this DB said that let the competent authority pass the orders and it will examine the issue.
After hearing counsels for the Government, Member Parliament and petitioner, Division Bench observed, “the Court has been impressing upon the respondent-State to take cognizance of the report of the Vigilance Commissioner and take a view in the matter one way or the other by passing a final order. A so-called action taken report has been filed which does not in any way come near to the concern of the court”.
“All that is being sought to be projected in the Action Taken Report is that the revenue authorities have reported that the State land is in physical and actual possession of the State revenue authority and there are no encroachments on the State land. On the other hand, the Advocate General M I Qadiri has submitted that the response from Revenue authorities has not been received which is indicated in the letter dated February 12, 2013”, the DB further observed.
“The Advocate General now undertakes that the final decision on the report dated April 24, 2006 as well as fresh communication of the Vigilance Organization dated September 2, 2011 will be taken on or before March 12, 2013. If the order, as per undertaking of the Advocate General, is not passed then the Secretary, General Administration Department shall remain present in person along with the record to explain why suitable action has not been taken”, the DB said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel