[ad_1]
A Jammu court has ordered closure of a prison misconduct case against an IAS officer for issuing an NOC permitting a businessman to start out development on a chunk of land.
The plot was half of a chunk of land transferred to Jammu Development Authority (JDA), however the possession of the plot was vested with the businessman, Bansi Lal Gupta, beneath the J&Ok State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001, also called the Roshni Act.
The growth comes almost a month after the Jammu and Kashmir High Court cancelled all land transfers made beneath the Act and ordered switch of these circumstances to the CBI for investigation.
Accepting the ultimate closure report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, particular court choose Y P Bourney held that there’s nothing on file to counsel that the particular person in whose favour NOC was issued had any entry to the officer or there was any cause for the officer to favour him. It mentioned the matter seems to have been thought of in a routine method by the officer in a bonafide efficiency of her duties and, due to this fact, “no malafide may very well be attributed’’.
“Allowing such cases to hang on the heads of upright officers would only deter the many from taking swift decisions at the nick of the hour which would not be in the interest of public at large,’’ the judge observed in the order on Thursday, adding that “the instant case merits its closure.”
Gupta owned a chunk of land — measuring 5 kanal and a pair of marla — at Deeli in Jammu. This was, nonetheless, half of 194 kanal and 5 marla state land transferred to Jammu Development Authority beneath survey No 781.
Giving particulars, the court identified that in 2011, Gupta was denied permission to lift an workplace advanced, with then JDA vice-chairman Vinod Sharma saying the plot belonged to JDA.
Gupta then filed a illustration earlier than the Divisional Commissioner, who sought a report from Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, and the JDA vice-chairman. In 2012, the Divisional Commissioner marked his illustration to the Chief Town Planner, who knowledgeable the then JDA vice- chairperson Sarita Chauhan.
She wrote again, highlighting that the land was transferred to JDA and couldn’t be transferred to any particular person beneath the Roshni Act. However, she left it to the knowledge of the Divisional Commissioner to see whether or not the land was rightly transferred to Gupta, concluding that in that case discovered, a notification be issued and JDA’s declare be deleted.
Later, the Divisional Commissioner, in response to a letter from the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, wrote that the piece was notified for the aim of J&Ok Development Act, 1970 and that the notification didn’t authorise the switch of state land to JDA. Referring to the JDA’s objection, he mentioned that although it had endured that the land belonged to it, it didn’t assail the conferment of Gupta’s possession rights.
The Principal Secretary forwarded the report back to the JDA Vice- Chairperson for motion. She once more sought a clarification, to which JDA’s director, land administration, mentioned the entries within the file in favour of JDA have been made with out holding in thoughts the precise standing of land on the time and that it was in bodily possession of Gupta. This cleared decks for issuance of NOC.
“It was not inside her competence to sit down in judgement and resolve whether or not the land in query was rightly or wrongly transferred in favour of Bansi Lal,’’ the choose held.
[ad_2]
Source hyperlink