Early Times Report
jammu, Sept 2: In a petition, seeking a direction to J&K Revenue Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, and seven other senior revenue officers, including tehsildars of Jammu, Jammu North, Samba, Vijaypur and Bari Brahmana, to escheat 280 kanals of land under J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and J&K Alienation of Land Act 1938, High Court judge, Justice Tashi Rabstan has directed Deputy Commissioners of Jammu and Samba to file present status of the land on the next date of hearing.
Pending disposal of the petition filed by Subash Chander, sarpanch of Patoli Brahmana, through his counsel P S Parmar, the court, in its August 26, 2015 interim order, issued notice to the respondents returnable within two weeks.
The court also directed DCs of Jammu and Samba to file present status of the land mentioned in the petition on September 9, the next date of hearing.
The petitioner prayed the court for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to escheat the land of business woman Shilpi Mahajan, wife of Akhil Gupta of Trikuta Nagar, falling under different khasra Nos in Jammu and Samba districts.
Alleging that the land had been purchased by Shilpi in violation of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 and the J&K Alienation of Land Act 1938, he sought a direction to the official respondents to furnish the details of her landed property in J&K.
The petitioner also sought the issuance of writ of prohibition, restraining the official respondents (concerned revenue authorities) from allowing Shilpi to transfer or alienate the land in favour of any other person or persons or create a third party interest with regard to the said land in order to defeat the provisions of law, whereby the landed property should vest with the State.
He alleged that when he came to know that Shilpi and her father-in-law Subash Chander Gupta were purchasing and selling the land in violation of the provisions of revenue laws, he brought the matter to the notice of the authorities concerned but they asked him to come with proof. He then produced before them some sale deeds executed by Shilpi and his father-in-law but the authorities took no action. Though he was upset, he approached the offices of concerned sub-registrars and was able to collect 72 sale deeds executed by them.
He submitted that under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, no person could have land more the ceiling, ie 12.5 standard acres as defined in section 2(1) of the Act, and as per section 5 of the Act, the land in excess of the ceiling area would vest with the State, and under section 17 of the Act, there is prohibition on transfer of land.
The petitioner also stated that under J&K Alienation of Land Act 1938, the State Government "has declared certain classes of persons as agriculture vide order No 546-C of 1939, and in Samba and Jammu districts, persons belonging to Mahajan community are excluded and they are, therefore a non-agriculture class".
"Since Shilpi belongs to Mahajan community, she falls under non-agriculture class and thus is not entitled to retain more than four kanals of land and that too for the residential purpose only," he stated.
He alleged that Shilpi purchased 23.9 kanals of land in Bhalwal patwar from Som Dutt Sharma, Govind Ram Sharma and Chaman Lal Sharma, all sons of Mela Ram Sharma, mutated under section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act vide six sale deeds of khasra Nos 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1030 and 1036 executed on March 22, 2010, March 27, 2010 and March 29, 2010, ie two sale deeds on each date. She was now raising construction on this land, thereby changing the use of land to commercial, he alleged.
Apart from it, she was also alleged to have purchased 47.13 kanals of agriculture land at Bhalwal vide 15 sale deeds registered on different dates. This land falls under khasra Nos 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1016 min, 993 min, 997 min, 1000 min, 994 min, 999 min, 953 min and 1017.
The petitioner submitted that she had also purchased 208.4 kanals of agriculture land at Najwal, Bhagla, Pekhri, Patli, Birpur, Gowal and Kartholi in Samba vide 43 sale deeds registered on different dates.
"Since Shilpi, who is an industrialist and owns industries, does not belong to agriculture class, she is not legally entitled to purchase so much of agriculture land in her name," he added and alleged that the land had been purchased with the intention of evading the provisions of Alienation of Land Act as this transaction of land was benami, whereas the "nominal alienee is actually the real estate agent of her father-in-law Subash Chander Gupta, son of Ramji Dass Gupta of Mandi Govindpura, Punjab, who is a non-state subject".
He alleged that Shilpi had 208 kanals of land in the erstwhile Samba tehsil and 72 kanals of land in erstwhile Jammu tehsil.
He alleged that when revenue officials came to know that he was pursuing the matter, instead of acting under law, they started helping the woman industrialist in transferring the land in the name of some other persons and for that purpose were issuing fard intikhab for the sale of the land.
Even after receipt of notice, she allegedly succeeded in executing one sale deed before Sub-Registrar, Samba. Following this, the petitioner served notices to Revenue Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, DC (Jammu), DC (Samba) and tehsildar, Jammu.
"She executed three sale deeds on August 22 last before the Sub-Registrar, Samba and till the official respondents wake up from their slumber, she would succeed in transferring/alienating whole of the land in the name of other persons with the help of lower revenue officials, causing a huge loss to the State exchequer as the land, which is in her name, is the land of the State," the petitioner alleged.
He alleged that besides the sale deeds, Shilpi had more land in her name which could be ascertained by the official respondents, and if after verification, some other land was found to be registered in her name, it had to be vested with the State as per the mandate of the law.
He alleged that by the abuse of their official position, the revenue officials were helping the woman industrialist to accumulate land against the provisions of revenue laws for which the revenue officials were required to be prosecuted under law.
He alleged that the "revenue" officials and their subordinates had been working as a well-organised land mafia and defeating the provisions of revenue laws by converting agriculture land into commercial land without proper permission and sanction of the change of land use. |
