news details |
|
|
| Contrary to HC verdict, AC(R)'s findings lead to "denial" of ownership rights to Housing Board | | Channi Green-Belt encroachment: | | BHARAT BHUSHAN
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Dec 13: In the matter of Channi Himmat Green-Belt Park encroachment, the findings of assistant commissioner (revenue), Jammu, lead to the denial of ownership rights of the land, now valued at over Rs 100 cr, to the housing board, contrary to a high court verdict in this case.
The AC(R)'s findings, compiled in a letter, are based on a demarcation report of the field staff concerned, the official record and a decision of financial commissioner (revenue) in this regard. According to the letter, a major portion of the long strip of land along Narwal bypass road on Channi Himmat side, which is earmarked for the Green-Belt, belongs to private persons and not to the housing board, which raised the housing colony nearly three decades back.
While the division bench judgement, that the land stands acquired by the housing board against the payment of final awards to owners on November 30, 1981, came on April 25, 2006, the AC(R)'s findings concluded on August 20, 2010.
In his letter No DCJ/5Q/2010-11/1639-40, the AC(R) gave a reference of an order of financial commissioner (revenue), which set aside the mutation No 774 of July 7, 1976.
As per the financial commissioner's decision vide file No 333/FC/AP dated November 14, 2007, the ownership rights of the land in question were conferred, under section 5 of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act 2007, on Nazir Ahmad and others.
In the colony's site plan, however, the strip of adequate width was left to be later developed as Green-Belt to serve as a thick plantation buffer against the heavy noise and air pollution constantly generated by round-the-clock vehicular traffic on the adjoining bypass road.
The entire land at Channi Himmat was acquired by the board in 1981. Nine years later, ie in 1990, some people moved the high court with the claim that the strip, earmarked for the Green-Belt, actually belonged to them.
Noor Ahmad, Noor Bibi, Mohammad Yaqoob, Abdul Majid, Mohammad Shafi, Bashir Ahmad, Mohammad Rashid, Sakina Bibi, Shima Bibi, Gulzar Begum, Sultan Mohammad, Bagh Ali and Nazir Ahmad prayed to the court to stop the board from "taking forcible and illegal possession of the land (Green-Belt) and demolishing shops and buildings constructed on it".
An interim order for maintenance of status quo was passed by the court in this regard on August 13, 1990. Alleging that the land was in their possession for the past 60 years, they said they were entitled to ownership rights under government order No 432-C of
1966, though no mutation had been attested in their favour. The board vehemently opposed the petitioners' claim, saying it had acquired the land on November 30, 1981. It also said that no structure stood on the land before the court's status quo order and asserted that the petitioners had raised construction on the land under the garb of the court order. The petition was dismissed by the court on February 10, 2000, with the observation that "this writ is utterly misconceived".
"This is a vexatious litigation because the petitioners, knowing that the land has been acquired, made false averments against the board claiming compensation and title which does not vest in them. Even revenue record produced by them shows that it is a State land which is recorded as Banjar Qadeem," the court said.
So the question of proprietary rights would not arise, but assuming that they had any right under any law, it could have been agitated on a reference being made by the collector provided he was approached. Since it was not done, the petition "is utterly misconceived and liable to be dismissed".
In case any of the rights of the petitioners was infringed, the only remedy available to them was under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court said since they had not applied to the collector under it, even this right had been lost because they had, by filing objections, disclosed the date of the award and the limitation would start running against them from October 1999. After the dismissal of their petition, Sultan, Bagh Ali, Yaqub, Abdul Majid, Mohammad Shafi, Rashid Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Noor Bibi and Gulzar Bibi filed another petition, this time before the division bench of chief justice BA Khan and justice JP Singh, seeking regularisation of their "possession" of land under government order No LB-6/C of 1958 and proprietary rights under government order No S-432 of 1966.
This writ petition was taken up by the bench for preliminary hearing during which the judges said they did not find any material on records to disturb the factual finding recorded by the single judge that the appellants were out of possession of land and had resorted to vexatious litigation. We are conscious of the fact that the appellants had come to the court with unclear hands and protracted the litigation to perpetuate the operation of an interim order obtained by them on August 13, 1990," they added. With these observations, the judges dismissed the writ petition on April 25, 2006. "We dismiss the appeals with costs/litigation expenses to the housing board, quantified at Rs 10,000 each appeal," they ordered.
The AC(R)'s investigation was carried out nearly four years after the dismissal of the writ petition by the double bench. His findings were, however, contrary to the court verdict. Also, the land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act as per award made on November 30, 1981, by the then AC (R) as collector, land acquisition.
An amount of Rs 3,71,41,895 was awarded to the land owners as compensation.
In his letter No DCJ/5Q/2010-11/1639-40 dated August 20, 2010, the AC (R) told the board's land acquisition collector that no map/tatimas of the land were presented before the field staff to carry out demarcation.
"The photocopy attached with the collector's letter was not an authentic document," he added, saying the requisite tatimas were also not available in acquisition files lying in the offices of the deputy commissioner and the board.
A total of 271 kanals of land at Channi Himmat was declared as State land vide mutation No 774 attested on July 7, 1976, under Big Landed Estates Abolition Act.
The AC (R) said aggrieved by the order on mutation No 774, Sultan Mohammad and others moved the J&K special tribunal, Jammu, which set aside the order passed on mutation No 774 and remanded the case to financial commissioner (revenue), who, on November 14, 2007, vide file No 333/FC/AP, decided the remand case and vested ownership rights under section 5 of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act in favour of Akbar Ali and Jeevan and thereafter in favour legal heirs -- Nazir, Bagh Ali, Noor Mohammad, Sultan Mohammad and Gulzar Bibi. He financial commissioner's order came after about an year of the division bench verdict in the case.
In his letter, the AC (R) said the land, which was claimed by the housing board towards the west of bypass road, was also claimed by Sultan Mohammad and others.
He said his report was based on the demarcation report furnished by the field staff concerned and as per the entries that exist in the revenue record with regard to the land.
The Channi Himmat Residents Joint Action Committee has, however, taken serious note of the AC (R)'s report, saying he had ignored the division bench verdict while arriving at a conclusion as regards the land meant for Green-Belt.
In a letter submitted to the housing board managing director, committee secretary PL Kohli alleged that the appellants were never in possession of the Green-Belt land. The shed and the compound wall were constructed by them on the land in the first week of July, 2010, they added.
Committee member AS Wazir said it was unfortunate that the AC (R) had not taken any notice of the division bench verdict in the case and the points raised by the CJ (A) Khan and justice Singh.
He demanded the intervention of chief minister Omar Abdullah in the case so that the strip was developed as Green-Belt park at the earliest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
