HC questions Punjab IAS Ladhar’s role in Ludhiana land case
The Punjab and Haryana high court has questioned the role of senior Punjab IAS officer SR Ladhar in a case of property worth several hundred crores in the heart of Ludhiana city, terming that he ‘exceeded his official brief’ in the case.chandigarh Updated: Nov 03, 2014 22:21 IST
The Punjab and Haryana high court has questioned the role of senior Punjab IAS officer SR Ladhar in a case of property worth several hundred crores in the heart of Ludhiana city, terming that he ‘exceeded his official brief’ in the case.
The court observation came in a recent order wherein Ladhar as Jalandhar division commissioner had looked into a property case and concluded that the property in question belonged the government and that “entries (in record) made by officials were wrongly done”.
Justice K Kannan in his order stated, “It (the report by Ladhar) is loaded with pure legal absurdities of what I do not think is necessary to confront in this case, lest it becomes an adjudication of the title in the writ petition.”
Justice Kannan further said, “He (Ladhar) is not expected to know how to assess the ownership. He was not an expert in law to determine the ownership. In fact, he was exceeding his brief in assuming what the government was not even prepared to say,” observed justice Kannan in his order.
The court also imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner Kirpal Singh, who is chairman of the managing committee of an Industrial Training Institute in Ludhiana, over the disputed land and had demanded a CBI probe while claiming that Raj Bhandari, who was declared the actual owner of land by the court, had grabbed the property.
The land belonged to Dewan Chand who got it through an auction in 1957. His family members had rented it to the Punjab government for opening the ITI. Later Dewan Chand’s family members sold the property to the current owner Raj Bhandari. Following the dispute between the ITI management and the current owner over the ejection of government’s possession from the property, the matter had reached the high court.
However, the court said, “The writ petition is motivated, vexatious and an abuse of process of court.”