STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a much publicized case in which CBI produced challan against Kanta Andotra, former MLA and then Chairperson of R B Educational Trust based at Kathua and Ravinder Singh, the then Patwari Muthi Hardo for illegal possession and encroachment of land, a Special Judge CBI Court R K Wattal directed reinvestigation in case under the supervision of SP CBI concerned and granted four months time.
This case was registered on complaint of one 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 Public/Forest Department in District Kathua J&K has been encroached upon by some unscrupulous elements in violation of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and in connivance with Revenue officers and Forest officers of the Departments.
It was alleged in the complaint that Revenue officials of Kathua have entered into criminal conspiracy 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 of RPC and section 5(2) read with 5 (1) (c) of J&K PC Act 2006 and registered under FIR RC0042020A0005 against said 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 FIR that Kanta Adnotra has acquired land in excess of the ceiling limit of 100 standard Kanals in violation of section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and accused got the wrong calculation of land done which was held by the said Trust as 152 Kanals 01 Marla and 110 Kanlas and 18 Marlas by entering into conspiracy with other Revenue officials and officers and a false affidavit was also sworn before the High Court to mislead the court and saving the trust and to give benefit to the trust allowing it to retain excess land. After registration of the case investigation was done, the evidence was collected the enquiry report which was given by the enquiry committee after the order of enquiry was passed, was also collected and it was found that supplementary trust deed dated April 16, 2008 and December 9, 2017 were registered with family members of accused as its members.
It was further revealed during investigation that the said trust and the family members of husband of accused had got land transferred in his favour on his name and through attorney comprising of three sale deeds dated May 8, 2006 for total 79 Kanals 1 Marla, gift deed executed on May 8, 2006, October 25, 2007 and October 26, 2007 with respect to 79 Kanals 1 Marlas, 12 Kanals 2 Marlas, 40 Kanals 9 Marlas total 131 Kanals 11 Marlas, sale deeds dated March 6, 2010, May 13, 2010, January 5, 2011, January 7, 2011, January 7, 2011, for 48 Kanals 6 Marlas , 35 Kanals through husband of accused as attorney Sale deed dated September 15, 2017 in favour of Divya Suraj Partap Singh whereby total land of 328 Kanals 19 Marlas was acquired by R B Education Trust in violation of section 14 of Agrarian Reform Act providing ceiling limit of 100 Kanals.
The investigation revealed the then Patwari Ravinder Singh in conspiracy and in pursuance of the conspiracy with accused by abusing his official position without mentioning the details facilitated the acquisition of land by accused in favour of R B Trust with dishonest intention and falsely mentioning that there was no effect on the provisions of law under the aforesaid Acts. The investigation was conducted and the offences aforementioned were found to have been committed by the accused on the basis of investigation. It was further revealed that since a wrong affidavit has been filed before the High Court so appropriate proceedings for seeking sanction for prosecution of the accused were also instituted for action under 195 Cr PC.
Special Judge CBI R K wattal after hearing both the sides observed that 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. Court observed that 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 section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1978. “Until that final order is passed the statements of the witnesses recorded or the recommendatory reports of revenue committees and agrarian agencies concerned the material which are short of finality of the order formally declaring the accused liable for violation of section 14 of Agrarian Reforms Act and which are yet to fructify in final order of collector ACR the authority competent under law to pass such order, will legally be deemed to have been not warranting conviction, a criteria for limited purpose of sifting the evidence to proceed against the accused which can be considered and looked into on completion of further investigation/ enquiry. This aspect of the case is shown to have been either overlooked or completely ignored warranting re-investigation on all the aspects as stated above and granted four months time for re-investigation under the supervision of SP CBI concerned,” the Court observed.