[ad_1]
DAYS AFTER MAKING public names of outstanding politicians of Opposition events occupying state land, the Jammu and Kashmir authorities has sought a review of the J&Okay High Court’s October 9 judgment which ab initio declared the J&Okay State Land (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001 — additionally referred to as the Roshni Act — null and void.
In its judgment, the High Court had ordered a CBI probe and likewise requested the federal government to make sure annulment of mutation of property underneath the Act, and work out modalities to evict encroachers from state land and retrieve it inside six months.
The review petition dated December 4, filed by Nazir Ahmad Thakur, Special Secretary (Revenue), on behalf of the J&Okay Union Territory authorities, sought to tell apart between “landless cultivators and individuals residing in dwellings on small areas” and “rich and wealthy land grabbers” who’ve obtained a title over state land by way of the provisions of the now struck down Act.
The authorities choice has drawn sharp criticism from varied quarters, particularly those that had challenged the Roshni Act. Advocate Sheikh Shakeel, counsel for Prof S Okay Bhalla who had initially filed a PIL towards the Roshni Act, mentioned this mirrored the realisation that implementing the High Court orders was going to hit solely the BJP’s pursuits. In Jammu, of the 44,000 kanals of state land regularised underneath Roshni, Muslims had been vested with possession rights to just one,180 kanals, he mentioned. It is anyone’s guess who the beneficiaries of the steadiness over 42,000 kanals of land are, he mentioned.
Landless vs ‘wealthy’
THE annulment of the Roshni Act by the High Court put the highlight on outstanding politicians who benefited from its provisions. But there have been 1000’s of frequent individuals who too might switch land possession underneath the identical Act. The political fallout has been double-edged; whereas it tried to vilify mainstream politicians, it additionally affected landless cultivators and people. Now, the J&Okay authorities needs to tell apart between the 2 lessons.
In the petition, the federal government mentioned, “The fact of either being a landless cultivator or house-holder with at the most one dwelling house in personal use, would be the primary criteria for differentiating between two classes.” It additionally sought time to permit the federal government to repair an applicable ceiling on and a price in order that the frequent individuals proceed to stay in possession of land. There might be no aid for encroachers above these ceilings, it mentioned.
Apprehending the HC order might result in an unintended “roving enquiry” by the CBI, the review petition mentioned the court docket’s intent was to probe any mala fide within the method the Roshni Act and its Rules had been framed, and likewise to determine the rich and influential people who manipulated the system to acquire advantages underneath the Roshni Act or encroached upon public land.
The petition additional acknowledged it should have not been the court docket’s intent to have detailed investigations into 1000’s of presidency functionaries who applied the Act, because it was framed then, with none mala fide intent.
The review petition additionally sought the court docket’s instructions to CBI to concentrate on influential and highly effective individuals who defrauded the state. The company might concentrate on design of authorized and coverage framework and adjustments thereto with mala fide intention to encroach public land and get possessory rights, fraudulent transactions made by non-public people with or with out the connivance of presidency officers, encroachments on authorities land not introduced underneath Roshni and never even talked about in data, moreover wrongful implementation of Roshni Act and actions thereof, it mentioned.
Pointing out that the circumstances being probed the Anti Corruption Bureau had been at totally different phases of investigation, together with prosecution sanction, cost sheet, and so forth, the federal government mentioned switch of such circumstances will delay bringing the responsible to guide. It requested the court docket to order ACB to take needed motion in these circumstances and if any components like fraud, manipulation or malafide intent involves gentle, switch them to CBI.
BJP’s chief spokesperson Sunil Sethi mentioned the occasion opposed any kind of encroachment on state land and welcomed the declaration of Roshni Act as void. Stating he was but to see the review petition, he mentioned the federal government in all probability needed to keep away from inconvenience to landless peasants and homeless individuals who too have gotten small landholdings underneath the Act.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
[ad_2]
Source hyperlink