PIL highlighting hushing up of Chatta-Sunjwan Land Scam
STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: A Division Bench of the State High Court comprising Chief Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat in a significant order in the much publicized Public Interest Litigation filed by Prof. S.K. Bhalla highlighting alleged hushing up of Chatta-Sunjwan land scam Monday directed Sr. AAG Seema Shekhar Khajooria appearing for GAD and Revenue Departments to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) into the inquiry report submitted by the then Divisional Commissioner, Jammu Shantmanu (I.A.S) who had in his inquiry report dated March 13, 2015 held that Khasra No. 1442 measuring 20 kanals and 12 marlas situated at Sunjwan is actually a state land and inspite of being state land was put to sale by apparent tampering with the records and laterally inserting under the category of private land.
After hearing Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed with Advocates Rahul Raina and Suraj Singh appearing for the petitioner Prof. S.K. Bhalla, Sr. AAG Seema Shekhar Khajooria appearing for GAD/Revenue/ Housing Departments, Sr. Advocate L.K. Sharma appearing for SRK Associates, Sr. Advocate M.A. Goni with Advocates Rahul Pant and Ajay Singh Kotwal appearing for newly impleaded Revenue Officials Ch. Aslam Din (the then Naib Tehsildar Bahu), Mohan Singh, Mohd. Iqbal Zargar (both the then Patwaris Sunjwan), the Division Bench in the open court further directed the Sr. AAG to also file the latest status of the investigation already entrusted to Crime Branch, Jammu before the adjourned date of hearing i.e. March 28, 2016.
When this much publicized PIL came up for hearing Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the petitioner / PIL drew the attention of the Division Bench to the latest inquiry report filed by SDM Jammu (South) Shahid Mehmood (KAS) who had been appointed as inquiry officer vide Govt. Order No. 151-Rev(S)/2015 dated October 7, 2015 to inquire into the alienation of land measuring 724 kanals in Village Sunjwan to SRK Associates. Advocate Ahmed read the inquiry report and pointed out that the inquiry officer has concluded that 257 Kanals and 14 marlas of land is Gair Mumkin Khad, 310 Kanals and 11 marlas is Gair Mumkin Jaar, 144 Kanals and 04 marlas is Banjar Qadeem and 12 kanals and 16 marlas is Gair Mumkin Rasta, Gail, Chapri.
Advocate Ahmed further submitted that the inquiry officer has concluded that most of the land in question being non-agricultural is out of the preview of the Agrarian Reforms Act and Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. Advocate Ahmed further submitted that the inquiry officer in para 7 has made some astonishing revelations that some patches of land which otherwise are not worth to be sold have been got alienated by means of sale deeds. The Revenue Officials who have issued the Fard Intikhabs of such patches of land in favour of the Vendors and Vendees and got that land alienated illegally are required to be prosecuted under law and their names are Pritam Dass Bangotra and Baisakhi Ram the then Tehsildar Settlement Jammu, Ghulam Nabi and Ch. Aslam Din the then Naib Tehsildar Bahu, Hazoor Hussain the then Girdawar, Tara Chand, Mohd. Latief, Mohan Singh and Iqbal Zargar the then Patwaris in Patwar Halqa, Sunjwan.
Advocate S.S. Ahmed vociferously argued that GAD and Revenue Departments be directed to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) over the findings arrived at by the SDM, Jammu (South) in his elaborate inquiry report.
Advocate S.S. Ahmed further submitted that despite keeping in abeyance the building permission of SRK Associates by the State Government the said builder is still encroaching the hillocks at the disputed site by using high tech machinery and this made Deputy Commissioner Jammu to issue order No. 143 DCJ of 2015 dated 10-12-2015 whereby Deputy Commissioner Jammu constituted a special demarcation team and imposed complete ban on all kinds of activities on the land falling between the ridge of Hill View Resort at Sunjwan and the Chowadhi-Sunjwan boundary.
The Division Bench in view of the submissions made by Sr. AAG dismissed both the petitions with the observation that the same will not affect the petitioner before the civil court.
