news details |
|
|
| HC asks to maintain status-quo, notices served to Com/Secy Rev, Div Com Jmu & othrs | | MP'S son v/s State | | Early Times Report
Jammu, May 10 : Responding to the petition filed by Satish Sharma s/o Member Parliament Madan Lal Sharma challenging his eviction over state land at Village Lalyal Tehsil Jammu, Justice Mohd Yaqoob Mir of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Jammu Wing issued notice to the Commissioner/Secretary to Govt of J&K Revenue Dept, Divisional Commissioner Jammu, Deputy Commissioner Jammu and Tehsildar Settlement Jammu returnable within four weeks and in the meantime Court directed to maintain status-quo. Satish Sharma s/o Member Parliament Madan Lal Sharma has challenged his eviction over state land measuring 41 Kanals 13 Marlas at Village Lalyal Tehsil Jammu. Satish Sharma filed the petition through Adv Amit Gupta and Court after hearing Sr. Adv KS Johal assisted by Adv Amit Gupta directed the maintenance of status-quo. In the petition it has been submitted that the petitioner is in cultivating possession of the State Agriculture Land for the last more than 10 years. "The petitioner's case for regularization under Roshni Scheme was rejected by the District Collector Jammu on March 30, 2012 on the ground that land is "Gair Mumkin Darya" as per copy of Khasra Girdawari, it added.
The petitioner has questioned his eviction on several grounds and the Court after considering the arguments directed to maintain-status-quo. Pertinent to mention here that petitioner has enclosed a certificate dated November 29, 2010 issued by Tehsildar Akhnoor wherein it is certified that Satish Sharma s/o Madan Lal Sharma r/o Pallattan Tehsil Akhnoor has been the owner of land in village Dhanger (18 Kanals 9 Marlas) and in village Ambaran (06 Kanals & 06 Marlas) total land measuring 24 Kanals and 15 Marlas in Tehsil Akhnoor. It is worthwhile to mention that name of Satish Sharma figured in fresh status report filed by then Divisional Commissioner Jammu Pawan Kotwal in PIL titled Prof SK Bhalla vs State wherein it was mentioned that claims of Satish Sharma for regularization of his illegal possession was rejected on the ground that same was not covered under Roshni Act. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
