Amended Roshni Act also provided for giving freehold rights to official Residential Lease Holders too

Has Roshni Scheme – ACT No XII of 2001 been unfairly treated disreputing even All Administration & J&K Legislature ?

DAYA SAGAR

The Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 Act No. XII of 2001, an Act of J&K State Legislature had received the assent of the Governor on 9th November, 2001 and published in Government Gazette dated 13th November, 2001. Section 1 (1) of the Act said “This Act may be called the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001”. This Act is and has been mostly referred as Roshni Act in discussions / debates / public meetings although it has been no where referred as Roshni in the body of the text of the Act. No doubt in ‘The Statement of Objects and Reasons’ for the enactment of said Act it has been said that “In view of the above, the ?ble Finance Minister proposed the scheme called “Roshni in his Budget Speech 2000 where under it was suggested that the Proprietary Rights be given to the persons holding unauthorized till 1990 on payment of the cost equivalent to the prevailing market rate of the year 1990.” May be since in the introductory para the Government Gazette publication mentions it “An Act to provide for vesting of ownership rights to occupants of State Land for purposes of generating funds to finance Power Projects in the State” so in that reference the said Act was nick named as Roshni Act.
This Act was passed by J&K Legislative Assembly during the times of National Conference lead government which had come to power with reasonably large majority in Legislative Assembly. The government had said that as per rough estimates there were about 20 Lakh kanals of government lands under unauthorized occupation of some residents in J&K State of which a large volume ( may be more than 97 to 98 percent ) was in rural areas being used for agriculture/ cultivation and releasing of which may be cumbersome / involve litigations / socio economic complications so better such lands if not so particularly needed by government should be given to the occupants ( permanent residents of J&K ) on cost basis. The volume of likely fund generation was estimated around as Rs.25000 Crore ( on average @ Rs.124000 per Kanal in 2001) which could be used for purposes of generating funds to finance Power Projects in the State. Keeping in view the onset of militancy in 1989 the then government had kept the cut off date for land in occupation as not after 1989. The Act was enforced in the State w.e.f. 01-03-2002 vide SRO-94 dated 01-03- 2002, except in Ladakh and Kargil Districts.
The incorporation of Act No XII of 2001 was in principle also aimed at settling a very large number of cases (some thousands of cases ) of encroached government lands which as per reports with government were estimated to be nearly more than 97 to 98 percent in rural areas & majority being used for agriculture purposes ( may be some lands for a few decades before 1989 ). May be there were also some lands in the urban areas which also included some ‘earlier’ rural areas which had become urban due to change of civic environment over the years but that were very less in proportion to rural lands.
Later on during CONG/PDP Government the said Act was amended two times, 1st vide Act No. XVI of 2004 w.e.f. 21-05-2004 {the Cut Off Date was changed to the date of the commencement of the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) (Amendment) Act, 2004} and 2nd Vide Act No. III of 2007 and SRO 64 dated 5th May, 2007 The Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Rules, 2007 made in terms of Section – 18 of the Act published in Government Gazette dated 5th March, 2007, after which as a policy change it was decided that all the unauthorized occupied lands being used for Agriculture/ farming purposes would be given to the occupants as Agriculture land @ Rs.0 cost per Kanal plus Rs.100 only as documentation cost per Kanal ( Rule -13 IV).
In the amended Act in 2004 the then Existing clauses (a) and (b) of Section- 2 ‘Definitions’ were substituted by clauses (a), (b), {c – “Occupant” means a person who is in actual physical possession of any State land on the commencement of the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) (Amendment) Act, 2004, personally or through an authorized agent; } , (d), (e) and (f) vide Act No. XVI of 2004 w.e.f. 21-05-2004, s.2. where under even those permanent residents of J&K who had been officially allotted/granted (under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Grants Act, 1960 or any other law ) government lands on lease ( 40 yrs/60yrs) by taking premium for residential purposes/ society purposes / trust purposes/ were also brought in the scope of Act for giving them ownership instead of extension of lease {Section 4-1-A -State land in possession of: – (i) an authorized occupant may be converted into freehold rights by the Committee in favour of the occupant unless he opts for exercising his lease hold rights}. So treating all the beneficiaries as unlawful encroachers and taking decisions against even the 40yr/60yr residential lease holders of 1950s/1960s without giving them opportunity to express their case/ rights surely appears unfair/ unjust. In a way the case of said 40yr/60yr residential lease holders of 1950s/1960s / or earlier was like the way lands are allotted in present days in JK HB/ JDA/SDA colonies on 20 yr lease basis and have also been given ownerships/ free hold rights on payment of nominal addition cost. For instance In Channi Himmat of JKHB colony plots are allotted for residential lease of 20 years only since 1984 and it has been in 2021 that JKHB had through a general notification published under DIP/J-4354-P/20 Dated 20-02-2021 offer to give the owner ship/ free hold rights to lease holder and rights were given even to many expired residential lease where even the original 20 yr lease had not been further renewed by then after having lived for 20 years and as per information available the conversional charges taken for free hold were much less ( may around Rs.15000/ Marla or less than Rs.60/ sq ft ) than the lease conversions taken from residential lease holders under Roshni Scheme 2007. It is not out of place to mention here that some residential lease holders who had been served demand notes for taking ownership rights under Roshni Scheme had not made the payment protesting that the cost being demanded was more even when the Committee / revenue department had charged only from 25 to 40 percent of the assessed market price from residential occupants and that was also one of the reasons for the recoveries being less than the total demand notes of even just around Rs.300 cr raised by the Revenue Department.
To be Continued
(The writer is Sr Journalist and social activist)