HC asks Faridkot SSP to take action in land grab case
The Punjab and Haryana high court has recently directed the Faridkot senior superintendent of police to take appropriate action within one month in pursuance to the inquiry report conducted by the economic offences wing on October 25 against the seller and buyers of a Rajasthan government property in an alleged case of land grab.punjab Updated: Feb 05, 2013 19:36 IST
The Punjab and Haryana high court has recently directed the Faridkot senior superintendent of police to take appropriate action within one month in pursuance to the inquiry report conducted by the economic offences wing on October 25 against the seller and buyers of a Rajasthan government property in an alleged case of land grab.
The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, had alleged that 6 kanals of land sold by Bhagwant Singh to Reshma Devi, Tarsem Kataria and Dharmvir, all residents of Faridkot, actually belonged to the Rajasthan government.
The Rajasthan government had acquired thousands of acres from farmers in three districts of Punjab in 1959 for construction of the Rajasthan canal. After the acquisition of the land, the Rajasthan government constructed the canal but did not get the mutation executed in its name, due to which revenue records still show farmers as owners of the land.
The land sharks are allegedly taking benefits of this fact and influential people either try to buy or sell the land in alleged connivance with some revenue and canal department officials. Many farmers are still tilling the land for which they have been compensated and some commercial establishments are using this land without the permission of the Rajasthan government.
The land located at very prominent location adjacent to two roads in Faridkot is said to be worth crores of rupees. Its owner, who was later found to be having ownership on only 9 marlas, had sold 6 kanals, which was already acquired by the Rajasthan government and he was reportedly compensated for the same.
"I began to contest the case of mutation as the seller had entered with an agreement with me to sell the land on some conditions. But he failed to fulfil the conditions and later sold the land to three others at lower rates in January 2010," claims Pawan Bansal.
The deputy commissioner on finding that on the basis of the report of the field staff that the seller had ownership of only 9 marlas and he failed to prove his claim on the rest of 6 kanals, set aside the mutation in June 2012.
"An inquiry into this alleged case of land grab was also conducted by the EO wing of Faridkot police a few months ago, which was forwarded to senior officers for taking necessary action against the seller and three buyers, but no action had been taken against them by police so far," says Pawan Kumar. The district attorney also said in his report that prima facie a case under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC may be registered against the violators, he claimed.
Faridkot SSP Gurpreet Singh Toor could not be contacted on his phone.