Khajrana village land demarcation cancelled | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 20, 2018-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Khajrana village land demarcation cancelled

TERMING IT as a colourful exercise, the district administration has cancelled the illegal demarcation undertaken by the Tehsildar on 0.149 hectares of land involving Khajrana village survey number 1349/1 and 1349/3 at Gulmohar Colony/Sanvid Nagar on February 15, 2005.

india Updated: Jan 31, 2006 12:42 IST

TERMING IT as a colourful exercise, the district administration has cancelled the illegal demarcation undertaken by the Tehsildar on 0.149 hectares of land involving Khajrana village survey number 1349/1 and 1349/3 at Gulmohar Colony/Sanvid Nagar on February 15, 2005.

In his report, Additional Collector K K Khare, who took charge as Anoopur District Collector last week, has also traced stamp duty evasion to the tune of Rs 10.58 lakh in the land’s sale deed executed on March 11, 2005. In his order, he has recommended that Registrar, Stamps and Duty, be directed to recover the amount evaded.

According to information, Vaibhav Nagar Cooperative Society purchased 10.73 acres of Khajrana village land incorporating survey number 1309/2, 1349/2, 1349/4 and 1350/1 on July 7, 1976 through a registered sale deed. The Society completed all the formalities and District Collector and Town and Country Planning Joint Director duly approved its map on April 25, 1977.

This locality was then named Gulmohar Colony. The Society sold the plots to different individuals through registered sale deed. These plots were re-sold through registered sale deeds to complainants Omprakash Paliwal (102, Sanvid Nagar), Chunnilal (101, Sanvid Nagar), Mohanlal (100, Sanvid Nagar), Inder Soni (51, Gulmohar Colony), Anand Gokuldas (Gulmohar Colony), Prince Sproti (14/15, Gulmohar Colony). Subsequently, they constructed houses on their plots after Municipal sanction.

However, a demarcation of land undertaken by Indore Tehsildar on February 15, 2005 stated that buildings of 11 plot holders have been raised on survey number 1349/1 and 1349/3 belonging to Laxminrayan, son of Ratanlal on 0.149 hectares of land while remaining land was occupied by colony garden.

The Tehsildar made these findings in response to an application filed by Laxminarayan for land delineation. The plot holders filed a complaint with District Collector against the Tehisldar’s findings. Consequently, Khare was appointed as the inquiry officer.

During investigation, it was found that the sale deed was executed in favour of Laxminarayan on March 11, 2005 but the demarcation Panchnama prepared by Tehsildar on February 15, 2005 showed him the owner of the terra firma. Legally, Laxminarayan in no way could own the land till March 11, 2005.

Moreover, when the work for demarcation began on January 13, 2005, Laxminarayan cited himself as the landholder, though the survey stated that it belonged to Kamlabai wife of Mohanlal.

It was also revealed that no notice was served to adjoining landholders or to any other person nor was the delineation process held in their presence. In another blatant attempt, the map containing findings of Tehsildar was superimposed on map sanctioned by District Collector in 1977.“The whole exercise thus was unilateral, coloured and aimed to prove ownership of Laxminarayan over the land encompassing buildings of six complainants, road and public garden, which is a gross irregularity,” Khare’s report said.

Furthermore, a scrutiny of the sale deed revealed that sub-registrar recovered Rs 2.58 lakh as stamp duty showing it as an undeveloped plot of an agriculture land. This was despite the fact that Gulmohar is a posh locality adjoining Saket Nagar and was not an agricultural land, having guideline rate of Rs 8,500 per square metres.

Thus 1,490 square metres of land, valued at 1.26 crore, commands stamp duty of Rs 10.13 lakh, cess of Rs 50,660, Rs 1.26 lakh as Municipal taxes and Panchayat fee of Rs. 1.26 lakh. The report added that since the whole exercise was contrary to the rule, therefore the Tehsildar’s move under Section 240 of MP Land Revenue Code too is null and void.

First Published: Jan 31, 2006 12:42 IST