Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 10: With each side blaming other for encroaching land on the city outskirts, an alleged case of land grabbing has been hanging in the balance.
Given the present status of the matter, no one knows if it will continue to exist in future or what will happen to it. One of the parties is a female DSP who has approached the state vigilance commission and the chief minister for ‘justice’.
Those held accused by the DSP have, in turn, levelled serious allegations against her, saying that she ‘continues to mislead authorities by manipulating facts’.
“Following the complaints of DSP, four demarcations were done by different authorities and everyone stood against the DySP, who has accused one Ashiq Hussain of Chowadhi for grabbing land,” reveal official documents, stating that the first demarcation was made by the deputy commissioner, Jammu, who had ordered constitution of a board.
However, sources said when the DSP reportedly approached then MoS (home), he had directed then finance commissioner (revenue) to hold a probe into the whole episode. The finance commissioner had further directed then Deputy Commissioner (DC), Jammu, for enquiry.
“Then DC, Jammu, constituted a board of two officers-Assistant Commissioner Nazool and IAS officer Girish Dayalan -- who submitted report of demarcation”, revealed documents, adding that the land was purchased by Zakir Hussain and Aashiq Hussain under proper documentation from the court and mutated in revenue records.
“In his report, the commission constituted by Finance Commissioner, also rejected the claims of DySP and favoured Zahir Hussain and Ashiq Hussain,” read documents.
“The report submitted by the Tehsildhar, following the directions from DC Jammu dated 20-10-2012, was against the DySP,” state documents, adding, “Not satisfied with the report, the DSP again accused Zahir Hussain and Ashiq Hussain of encroachment and alleged that the report submitted by Tehsildhar settlement was incorrect and frivolous.
Dejected by the demarcation reports, the DSP approached state vigilance organisation (SVO), which wrote to then DC, Jammu, to constitute a board. Following the communication, then DC Jammu again constituted a board, headed by Regional Director-Survey and land records Jammu (chairman), Collector Irrigation and flood control Jammu (member), tehsildhar Jammu (member), Naib Tehsildhar Digiana (member), Naib Tehsildhar Bahu (member), Girdawar Sunjawan and Channi Himmat (member) and Patwari Chowadi and Sujawan (member).
The report clarified that there is no dispute between complainants (Hussain brothers) and the DSP. Distance between the houses of both is around 270 ft and land purchased by Hussain brothers under legal documentation is deficient by 1 kanal and 7 marlas.
When contacted, Hussain brothers said, “We are residing there since 2003 and the land was purchased by them from Jameet Singh and Bairaj Singh under proper sale deed.”
They alleged that the DSP was demanding 1 kanal land free of cost from them and when they refused, she started harassing them. She also demolished compound wall of their legally purchased land on 8-10-2012.
They maintained that the land in question including Nallah is private, where the DySP has constructed a house, which is gair mumkin khad, without any proper permission from competent authorities.
However, she also filed a PIL in the high court which was later disposed of after the report submitted by then DC Jammu.
Hussain brothers alleged that some low rung officers of SVO were biased towards them and wanted to give undue benefit to the lady officer.
Taking dig at SVO for presenting biased report, then Deputy Commissioner-Ajeet Kumar Sahu in its note said, “The language in the letter of SSP Vigilance Organisation Jammu is highly contemptuous and questioned the authorities of revenue department and police department even till the level of deputy commissioner prematurely and without sufficient proof,” adding “Further from the letter of VO Jammu, it appears that IO is highly prejudiced towards one party and decided the matter before hand. It further appears that the vigilance organisation is trying to induce the government servant to give a particular type of report by using threatening language. It is highly derogatory and objectionable remark that the revenue officers have deliberately sheltered the encroachers while all efforts are being made to assist VO in conducting fair enquiry.”S