E-Paper
J&K administration seeks review of order on Roshni Act; court adjourns petition to December 16
The review petition also sought the court’s directions to CBI to rein in influential and powerful people who defrauded the state
In a U-turn, the Jammu and Kashmir administration has sought a review of October 9 high court judgment that had declared the 2001 J&K State Land (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act (Roshni Act) null and void.
The high court on Monday adjourned the main PIL as well as review petition filed by the J&K government to December 16.
In its October 9 order, the high court had also ordered a CBI probe and directed the government to cancel all mutations of state lands under the Act, and work out modalities to evict encroachers from such land and retrieve it within six months.
Following the order, the administration was uploading the names of “encroachers” on government website. These names included those of National Conference president Farooq Abdullah, party vice-president Omar Abdullah, Peoples Democratic Party chief Mehbooba Mufti, PDP leader and former finance minister Haseeb Drabu, and politicians from Congress.
On December 4, the administration, through special secretary (revenue) Nazir Ahmad Thakur, filed a review petition before the high court.
While Thakur refused to comment on the development, the petition has sought to distinguish between “landless cultivators and individuals residing in dwellings on small areas” and “rich and wealthy land grabbers” who obtained title over state land via provisions of the “unconstitutional” Act.
It further said the court’s intent was to probe any mala fide intent in the manner the Roshni Act and its Rules were framed, and also to identify the wealthy and influential individuals, who manipulated the system to obtain benefits under the Act.
The review petition also sought the court’s directions to CBI to rein in influential and powerful people who defrauded the state.
BJP’s chief spokesman and high court lawyer Sunil Sethi said, “a review has been sought by the government of its judgement so as to insulate landless farmers and small city dwellers, who were given proprietary rights of small land holdings”.
The government decision has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters, especially those who had challenged the Roshni Act.
Farooq Abdullah had already called the entire exercise a political vendetta.
Talking to HT, he had said, “We purchased the house in Srinagar in 1974 and it was not under Roshni scheme. Neither we purchased the house in Jammu under it. It is only propaganda against us. I just can’t understand what they want to do? Sunjwan colony was not raised by me.. it was raised long back. Don’t we have the right to live”.
Former minister Haseeb Drabu and family also figured in the list. He also rubbished suggestions that he was involved in any irregularities, saying his grandfather had bought the land in question in 1956 in the name of his mother, who divided it among her children after extending its lease. “I have only one kanal of land. Just because I have been a minister does not mean that you have a right to sully my name,” he said.
Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmad, counsel of Prof SK Bhalla, who had filed the main PIL, said, “If the government wants an amendment for the poor and landless, I see no harm in the review petition. It is yet to be seen how the high court takes the review petition but somewhere (along the line), the government must have also realised that the maximum number of people who were given proprietary rights were poor. You can’t equate land mafia with a poor man. If the intention is to protect the poor, then a review petition is justified.”
