STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In much publicized Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the land grabbers for encroaching over 20 lakh kanals of state land in connivance with government officers, the Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Hasnain Masoodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal on Wednesday issued notices to the State to retrieve excess land from RB Educational Trust, Kathua (Family Trust of Ch. Lal Singh, Minister for Health, Jammu and Kashmir) which is having land measuring 316 Kanals and 17 Marlas situated at village Karandi Khurd, Tehsil Hiranagar, Kathua contrary to the ceiling prescribed under Section 2(1) read with Section 14 of J and K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
The Division Bench also expressed its dissatisfaction to the Status Report filed by the Director State Vigilance Organisation (SVO) over the infamous Roshini Land Scam, and observed that the report is merely a narration of facts and events without detailing the action taken.
In Miscellaneous Petition No. 1/2015 in PIL, filed by Prof S K Bhalla seeking directions to the State to forthwith retrieve/recover excess land from R B Educational Trust (Family Trust of Ch. Lal Singh), Kathua, the Division Bench issued notices to Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner (Home), Commissioner/Secretary (GAD), Commissioner/Secretary (Revenue), Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, Director General of Police and State Vigilance Organisation.
Senior AAG Seema Sheikhar Khajooria, Senior AAG S.S Nanda and AAG L.K Moza accepted the notices in the open court on behalf of the State functionaries.
Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed with Advocates Irfaan Khan, Rahul Raina and Suraj Singh, appearing for the PIL, drew the attention of Division Bench to a D.O. letter dated 24th April 2006 written by Dr. Ashok Bhan (IPS) (now retired), the then Commissioner of Vigilance, J and K to the then Chief Minister, Jammu and Kashmir, wherein it was submitted that Ch. Lal Singh had physical possession of 324 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land in Village Karandi Khurd, Tehsil Hiranagar District Kathua where he is constructing a farm house and under the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act a person can claim possession to the extent of land measuring twelve and a half standard acres which is approximately 100 Kanals. He also drew the attention of the Division Bench to a Status Report filed by Simrandeep Singh (IAS), the then Additional Secretary to Government, General Administration Department wherein it was submitted that on 6th March 2013 in a meeting convened by the Chief Secretary, it was decided that the land in excess of what can be retained and possessed by the RB Educational Trust in accordance with the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 should be retrieved and dealt with in accordance with law.
The petitioner has leveled serious allegations of favouritism against S.P Rakwal (KAS) the then Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Kathua and sought disciplinary action against him for delaying the matter by adjourning it on several dates without substantial progress. He described Rakwal as a blue eyed person of Ch. Lal Singh who was rewarded with a posting in the Personal Section of the Health Minister as his OSD.
The petitioner also that in CMA No.597/2013 moved by Charanjit Singh, the then MLA Kathua it was clearly submitted that Ch. Lal Singh got an honest/inconvenient Revenue Officer Puneet Sharma (KAS) removed as AC(R) Kathua and brought his favourite S.P Rakwal (KAS), the then SDM R.S Pura as AC(R) Kathua so that the matter of excess land is hushed up.
It is further alleged that on 27th November 2012 reportedly, a meeting was held at the residence of the then Revenue Minister Raman Bhalla where the then Revenue Secretary B.A Runyal was also present and in presence of Ch. Lal Singh both of them humiliated Puneet Sharma and warned him of dire consequences and ultimately succeeded in persuading the Revenue Minister to transfer him from out of District Kathua as he was sharing the information with the petitioner as PIO under RTI Act with regard to the properties of Ch. Lal Singh.
The Division Bench also took serious note of the encroachment of the State Land, measuring more than 20 lakh Kanals. Advocate S.S Ahmed drew the attention of the Court to CMA No.555/2013 wherein directions were issued to the State of Jammu and Kashmir to disclose the names of the encroachers who had occupied the State Land.
Advocate Ahmed further submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu as well as Kashmir had submitted 13 compilations indicating the names of the encroachers district-wise. Upon this the Division Bench directed the State of J and K to file a comprehensive report/proposal before the next date of hearing, suggesting mechanism for removal of the encroachment so that effective orders are passed in this regard.
In Roshni Scam, the Division Bench issued fresh directions to the SVO to file a comprehensive status report FIR wise and the said report must give the exact date of conclusion of the investigation submission of file to the competent authority for accord of sanction and the period for which the matter is lying with the authority without any decision so that effective orders are passed in the matter.
Division Bench also observed that in FIR 15/14 and FIR 16/14 registered with Police Station VOJ, the investigation stood concluded and the matter submitted to the Government for accord of sanction. Advocate S.S Ahmed submitted that the high profile accused were interfering in the matter by putting pressure upon the competent authority/ Government by making representations so that the process of sanction was hampered/stalled. He further submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Subramaniam Swamy’s case the accused is not entitled to hearing by the sanctioning authority.
Upon this, the Division Bench in the Open Court observed that a bare look at the report filed by SVO reveals that in few cases the investigation has been concluded and matter submitted to the competent authority for accord of sanction. However, sanction is being delayed in the name of giving opportunity of being heard to the accused. The respondents/State is expected to realize that as per the law laid down in Subramaniam Swamy’s case the accused would not have a right to be heard while the competent authority accord consideration to grant or otherwise of the sanction for prosecution of the accused. “All that is required to be seen is whether material collected by the Investigating Officer constitutes an offence within the meaning of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act”, the Bench observed. JNF
MEDIA FACES BRUNT
What an irony. Ch Lal Singh, now Minister for Health, had filed defamation suits against five newspapers of Jammu and Kashmir for reporting the retrieval of encroached land by the officers of the Revenue Department. However, the retrieved land was again handed over to the Trust, belonging to Singh’s family on Suparadhnama, which too was reported by the newspapers, who are still facing trial for objective reporting.
