Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, April 28, 2024

All The Land Deals Under The Roshni Act Are Now Void

Fri, Nov 6, 20, 20:30, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 6233
It goes without saying that most of us had seen how Roshni scam which is Rs 25,000 crore scam was highlighted extensively some time back in Zee News channel. They termed it as Mission Zameen Jihad.

It goes without saying that most of us had seen how Roshni scam which is Rs 25,000 crore scam was highlighted extensively some time back in Zee News channel. They termed it as Mission Zameen Jihad. All this happened when Farooq Abdullah was the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.

Truth be told, it was highlighted in Zee News that the chief objective of Mission Zameen Jihad was to change the demographic population of Jammu in favour of Muslims. It was told that the land was allotted mainly to influential people mostly Muslims who never hailed from Jammu. It was also disclosed that advertisements announcing 100% plots for Muslims in colonies were made so that no person of any other religion could ever buy the plot.

Needless to say, we all now also know that the Jammu and Kashmir government has decided to annul all land dealings made under the Roshni Act after 3 weeks of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court declaring it unconstitutional and unsustainable. The Principal Secretary of Revenue was asked to retrieve all such land and remove encroachments within six months. An official spokesman said in the statement issued to the press that, The Principal Secretary, Revenue, shall work out a plan to retrieve large tracts of state land in a time-bound manner and work out modalities to evict encroachers from such state land within six months besides planning the handling of money received for these lands after annulment.

Going forward, the spokesman then said that the Principal Secretary, Revenue shall ensure information regarding district-wise state land as on January 1, 2001 are complied and posted on the official website and the NIC website with details of the state land that was in illegal and unauthorized occupation of person(s) entities with full identity of encroachers and particulars of the land. He said that complete identities of all influential ministers, legislators, bureaucrats, government officials, police officers, businessmen, their relatives or persons holding benami for them, who have derived benefit under the Roshni Act, 2001, or Roshni, 2007, will be revealed. The action shall be completed within a month.

To be sure, the scheme initially envisaged conferment of proprietary rights of about 20.55 lakh kanals to the occupants of which only 15.85% land was approved for vesting of ownership rights. Against the anticipated revenue from such occupants, the revenue actually generated was meagre! Influential persons benefited the most from this!

We also now know how in a latest, landmark, learned and extremely laudable judgment titled Prof. S.K. Bhalla v/s State of J & K and others in IA No. 48/2014 & CM Nos 4036, 4065 of 2020 in PIL No. 19/2011 delivered on October 9, 2020 through video conferencing from Srinagar, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held the Roshni Act to be unconstitutional. It minced no words to hold that the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 which is popularly known as the 'Roshni Act' is completely unconstitutional and all acts done under it or amendments thereunder are also unconstitutional and void ab initio. The Bench comprising the Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Rajesh Bindal directed CBI investigation into allegations against Ministers, legislators, bureaucrats, high ranking Government and police officials for having encroached upon public lands and having caused orders passed under the Roshni Act in their favour. Very rightly so!

In a sharp rebuff to the Make hay while sun shines culture, the Bench then holds in para 2 that:
It could perhaps be said that acquisition of property is a natural aspiration of every human being but certainly not dishonest acquisition premised in the criminal offence of trespass committed on State lands held in public trust by the Government. In fact, the implementation of this adage, as is manifested in the present case, tantamount to implementation of a loot to own policy. That these looters could motivate a legislation to facilitate their nefarious design, by itself speaks about their insidious and deep penetration into the corridors of power and authority; about the level and scale of their influence at all levels and suggests involvement of all those who mattered including in propounding and implementation of the policy.

In a rare and candid admission, the Bench then concedes in para 3 that:
We have not come across any such legislative state action legitimizing criminal activity at the cost of national and public interest with incalculable loss and damage to the public exchequer and the environment, without any financial (or other) impact assessment.

More damningly, the Bench then elucidates in para 4 holding that:
What is even more shocking is that despite a citizen of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir raising this issue by virtue of public interest litigation filed nine years ago in 2011 by way of the present PIL no. 19/2011 and another in the year 2014, their pleas for justice to the people of Jammu and Kashmir have fallen completely on the deaf ears of the official respondents. The bureaucracy and Government officials are enjoying huge salaries and benefits for their acts of omission and commission each of which tantamount to a penal offence and have thus actively encouraged usurpations of public lands. Those in power, authority and the respondents have completely failed to discharge their constitutional functions, their statutory duties and public law obligations towards the public to whom they owe their very existence.

While elaborating on the facts of the present case, it is then envisaged in para 5 that:
In this writ petition filed in public interest nine years ago in 2011, the present application was filed by the petitioner five and a half years ago as back as on 13th March 2014 submitting that a multi crore Roshni land scam unearthed by the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) for the ending year 31st March 2013, was required to be handed over to the CBI so that the matter could be thoroughly investigated and appropriate prosecutions be effected under the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act 2001 to be undertaken.

Delving deeper, the Bench then lays down in para 7 that:
On 9th of November, 2001, the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act 2001 received the assent of the Governor which was published in the Government Gazette on 13th November, 2001. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the enactment shocks the conscience of this Court and, therefore, is reproduction in extenso as under:

Whereas most of the State land stands encroached upon and is the purpose for which it was reserved at the time of regular settlement. These lands have either come under various types of construction or plantations including orchards. The eviction of these lands is very difficult if not impossible because of the procedure established under law whereunder an encroacher has to be given an opportunity of being heard before he is evicted. Moreover, the encroachers are entitled to file an appeal, review, revision and thereby the State will be involved in protracted litigation and ultimately no substantial achievement shall be made in removing the encroachments. The removal of encroachment en-block will also lead to mass unrest.

In view of the above, the Hon'ble Finance Minister proposed the scheme called Roshni in his Budget Speech 2000 whereunder it was suggested that the Proprietary Rights be given to the persons holding unauthorisedly till 1990 on payment of the cost equivalent to the prevailing market rate of the year 1990.

No wonder, it is then held in para 8 that, As a result of the above, the said enactment is referred to in common parlance as the 'Roshni Act'. We shall also so refer to this enactment hereafter.

Be it noted, the Bench then minces no words in stating in para 17 that:
It appears that the Revenue Department made J & K State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Rules, 2007 in purported exercise of power under Section 18 of the Roshni Act which came to be published in the Official Gazette as SRO 64 dated 5th May, 2007. It seems that no approval of these Rules was sought from the legislature and they were unauthorizedly published in Government Gazette. Again in a shocking illegality, these rules were in excess of the powers conferred by the Statute and in contradiction with the prohibitions contained therein.

What is worse is as stated in para 18 that:
This is done despite the mandate of the Constitution and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Government officials had the gumption and absolute arrogance to publish rules which did not have the clearance of the legislature speaks volumes about the influence of the beneficiaries thereof.

To put things in perspective, the key point of what is then stated in para 42 is that:
Before dealing with this application, few background facts are necessary. A writ petition in public interest which was registered as PIL No. 19/201, was filed by Prof. S.K. Bhalla on 17th August 2011, an academician and then a Principal of the Government Degree College, Mendhar pointing out to allegations of land grabbing leveled against influential people including police officers, politicians and bureaucrats occupying responsible positions in the Erstwhile J & K State in connivance with land mafia, making the prayer for constitution of an SIT and seeking appropriate criminal, disciplinary and other actions against those guilty. It is also stated that the writ petitioner referred to specific instances of land grabbing in Paras 18 to 20 of the writ petition but due to paucity of space it is not possible to elaborate them in detail here.

Finally and far most importantly, the Bench then concludes in the final para 119 by observing that:
In view of the above, we direct as follows:

 

  1. The Commissioner/Secretary to Government Revenue Department, shall ensure that following information regarding district wise State lands as on 1st January, 2001, are compiled and posted on the official website as well as the NIC website
    1. The details of the State land which was in illegal and unauthorized occupation of person(s)/entities with full identity of encroachers and particulars of the land.
       
    2. The details of:
      1. the applications received under the Roshni Act, 2001;
      2. the valuation of the land;
      3. the amounts paid by the beneficiary;
      4. the orders passed under the Roshni Act; and
      5. the persons in whose favour the vesting was done and also further transfers, if any, recognized and accepted by the authorities.
         
    3. Complete identities of all influential persons (including ministers, legislators, bureaucrats, government officials, police officers, businessmen etc.) their relatives or persons holding benami for them, who have derived benefit under the Roshni Act, 2001/Roshni Rules 2007 and/or occupy State lands.
       
  2. The Divisional Commissioners, Jammu as well as Kashmir, shall place on record district-wise full details of the encroached State land not covered by the Roshni Act, Rules, Scheme(s), order(s) which continues to be under illegal occupation; the full identity and particulars of the land and person(s)/entities encroaching the same. The Revenue Secretary shall ensure that this information is also posted on the website of the respondents within four weeks.
     
  3. The Secretary Revenue, Govt. of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir shall furnish the above information with copies of the supporting records to the CBI in the digitized format, and, if requested, hard copies thereof be also provided, within four weeks. The same shall be filed on court record as well.
     
  4. Translation of records, wheresoever required, shall be expeditiously ensured by the concerned Deputy Commissioner from the Tehsildars and provided to CBI within one week of the need being noticed/informed.
     
  5. In case, the above directions are not complied with, the Secretary Revenue and the Divisional Commissioners of Jammu and Kashmir shall be held liable and proceeded against for Contempt of Court.
     
  6. The present order be placed before the Director, CBI, who shall appoint teams of officers not below the ranks of Superintendents of Police assisted by other officers to conduct an in depth inquiry in the matters which are the subject matter of this order. On conclusion of the inquiry, the CBI shall register case(s) in accordance with law against the person(s) found culpable, proceed with the investigation(s) as well as prosecution(s) thereof.
     
  7. The Anti Corruption Bureau shall place before the Director, CBI, the closure report in FIR 6/2019 filed on 4th July, 2019 before the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Judge, Jammu) as well as a copy of the order dated 4th December, 2019 passed thereon by the Special Judge, Jammu.
     
  8. The Anti Corruption Bureau of the Union Territory of J & K shall place complete records of all matters regarding land encroachment/Roshni Act or Rules being enquired into or cases investigated into by it, before the CBI which shall proceed with the further inquiries and investigations therein in accordance with law.
     
  9. In all cases in which charge sheets stand filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau in the Courts, the CBI shall conduct further and thorough investigation, and, if necessary file additional charge sheets in those cases.
     
  10. In cases pending for accord of sanction for prosecution before the Anti Corruption Bureau or the Competent Authority, the records thereof shall be placed before the CBI for examination. These cases shall be thoroughly further examined, investigated by the CBI and the matter for accord of sanction of prosecution against all persons found by the CBI as involved in the offences, shall be proceeded with, in accordance with law.
     
  11. The CBI shall immediately inquire into the three instances at Serial Nos. A, B, C above (paragraph nos. 54 to 82); the matters pointed out in CMs 4036/2020, CM 4065/2020 and all instances of vesting under the Roshni Act and encroachment of State lands by influential persons as above in the details provided by the authorities and proceed further in these cases in accordance with law.
     
  12. The CBI shall also inquire into the continued encroachments on state lands; illegal change of ownership/use; grant of licences on encroached State lands; misuse of the land in violation of the permitted user; raising of illegal constructions; failure of the authorities to take action for these illegalities; fix the responsibility and culpability of the persons who were at the helm of affairs, who were duty bound to and responsible for taking action; their failure to proceed in accordance with law against the illegalities and instead have permitted/compounded the same, as also any other illegality which is revealed during the course of the enquiry wheresoever.

(VI) The CBI shall specifically inquire into the matter of publication of the Roshni Rules, 2007 without the assent of the Legislature. If this is found true, the CBI shall identify the persons responsible who have illegally and dishonestly published the same and proceed in the matter for their criminal liability.

(VII) The Principal Secretary, Revenue, Vice Chairman JDA and all other authorities from whom information is required by the CBI shall efficiently and expeditiously furnish all records and information to the CBI. Failure on the part of any Government authority to do so shall render them liable for appropriate departmental action apart from inviting criminal prosecution.

(VIII) We grant liberty to the petitioner in PIL No. 19/2011 and Ankur Sharma, the petitioner in PIL No. 41/2014; the applicants in CM 4036/2020 and CM 4065/2020 to place all material in their power and possession before the Central Bureau of Investigation. If called upon to do so, they shall render full assistance to the CBI.

(IX) The CBI shall file action taken reports every eight weeks in sealed cover before this court in this case.

(X) The Chief Secretary of the Government of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir shall monitor the matter and ensure that the inquiry by CBI is not hampered in any manner on account of concealment of documents, records, requisite assistance or cooperation on the part of the official machinery.

(XI) Any effort to delay the enquiry by the CBI in any manner should be construed as active connivance by such person(s) with those whose culpability is being investigated.

(XII) In view of the above directions, the presence of the applicants in IA Nos. 4036/2020 and 4065/2020 in the present proceedings is completely unnecessary and these applications are disposed of.


These applications are disposed of in the above terms.

No doubt, the most significant impact of this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment which has been well-drafted, well-worded, well-reasoned, well-analysed and well-justified is that the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 which is popularly known as the Roshni Act is completely unconstitutional and all acts done under it or amendments thereunder are also unconstitutional and void ab initio.

It merits no reiteration that CBI investigation has been very rightly directed by the two Judge Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising of Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Rajesh Bindal. This clearly manifests that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is very serious about this whole issue and wants to get to the bottom of it as there are very serious allegations against ministers, legislators, bureaucrats, high ranking government and police officials for having encroached upon public lands and having caused orders passed under the Roshni Act in their favour.

The language used by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in this judgment is very harsh because there is systematic loot as pointed out in this notable judgment. All those who are involved must be first identified and then investigated properly and all those who are found involved in corrupt misdeeds must be booked and strictly punished in accordance with law at the earliest!

To conclude, it goes without saying that the Jammu and Kashmir government has very rightly decided to annul all lands dealings under the Roshni Act as void. Truth must come out and it must be ensured what the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has stated about the systematic loot that those involved in it are not spared under any circumstances no matter how high they may be in power because as the time tested old adage goes that, Be you ever sop high, the law is above you! There can certainly be no ever denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The law relating to improvements to mortgaged property as embodied under Section 63-A was introduced by the Amending Act of 1929. Before this amendment, the Act, i.e., the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was silent as to improvements by a mortgagee.
If a childless widow dies intestate, everything that belongs to her goes to her in­ laws, and that includes all the wealth she acquired in her lifetime through her own efforts.
How To Assert A Daughter's Right, Filing A Suit For Partition
Many think that hiring legal counsel would just be an increase in the expenses involved in investing in real estate. If you are of the same opinion, it is time to think again.
A Will or Last Will and Testament is a legal document in the form of a declaration which a person known as a testator will name one or two people or a professional to manage their estate and distribute their estate to named beneficiaries, after their death.
A female Hindu dying intestate without making a Will – the property of the said Hindu goes according to the provisions made in Hindu Succession Act, 1956
A men Hindu passing away intestate without creating a Will
Validity of the Will may be challenged due to Lack of execution
Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that every person competent to contract i.e. a major and of sound mind or is not disqualified by law for contracting.
Perpetuity is an interest, which will not vest till a remote period. One cannot postpone the vesting of the property in the transferee beyond a certain limit. the period for which vesting may be lawfully postponed is called perpetuity period
The non-residents of India can buy property in India. They should be aware of the property registration method in the local region, like Mumbai, Delhi etc.. The sales deed should be verified with the sub-registrar and registrar in the Municipal Corporation. Get along the proofs of identity, residence, PIO/OCI status and other mentioned ones.
While clearly and convincingly holding that possessory title over property cannot be claimed merely on the basis of 'casual possession', the Supreme Court in Poona Ram v. Moti Ram
There is no provision in the Constitution that such an elected representative can claim or ask for a price after he demits office. A claim of this nature reflects as if it is something parasitical.
The Associated Journals Ltd & Anr v. Land & Development Office has clearly and convincingly upheld the eviction order passed against National Herald publisher Associated Journals Limited to vacate ITO premises where Herald House is located.
Property Rights for Married women
Rajesh Yadav Vs State of UP held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right and the State has a Constitutional duty to provide house sites to the poor. Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani who authored this path breaking judgment observed so while dismissing a PIL seeking eviction of four individuals who allegedly encroached a public land.
Article explains Succession, Testamentary Powers, Intestate Succession/Inheritance, Meaning/Definition of a ‘Will’ and Importance of making a Will.
The outdoor space of our home or the space at the backyard can serve as the area of cooking. However, you should have the basic equipment for grilling food and do up the space elaborately.
Property agents indeed charge high commissions, though the person selling a home pays the amount. However, the seller might pass this cost indirectly to you.
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma held in no uncertain terms that a daughter will have a share after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, irrespective of whether her father was alive or not at the time of amendment.
It is a truly cozier experience to spend a winter evening beside the crackling fire glowing at your backyard fireplace,
Do you have a porch, hot but, or gazebo which you want to cover up with something which can save on your heating bills?
Daulat Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. vs. Rajasthan acceptance of a gift can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee. Such inference can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances such as taking into possession the property by the done or by being in the possession of the gift deed itself.
Anup Majee Vs UOI the authority of the CBI to investigate into the allegations in a particular case within Railway areas remain unfettered by the withdrawal of consent of the State Government.
The new Model Tenancy Act offers great benefits to NRIs & landlords to get a sustainable rental income under a disciplined and law-protected environment.
Ahuja Trading Company vs Ramesh Chander Aggarwal that dishonest litigants cannot be allowed to abuse the process of court. This judgment came while hearing a tenancy matter.
The growth in real estate sector has been highlighted through the enactment and guidelines of RERA
KS Narayana Elayathu vs Sandhya Additional District Court, Ernakulam has while making the legal position crystal clear held explicitly that while District Courts are empowered to appoint a guardian for a minor's property, only Family Court can appoint a guardian for the person of a minor.
Smt Durgabala Mandal Vs West Bengal that the daughter-in-law is bound by the undertaking given while obtaining a compassionate appointment to maintain and extend medical assistance to the mother-in-law.
Arunachala Gounder (Dead) Vs Ponnusamy a daughter is capable of inheriting the self-acquired property or share received in the partition of a coparcenary property of her Hindu father dying intestate.
Smt.Sonia Bai vs Bashrath Sahu that under the Hindu Succession Act (amended in 2005), daughters are entitled to get an equal share in their parent’s inherited property.
Ajay Kumar Rathee vs Seema Rathee that the daughter who was aged 20 years of age was not intending to maintain ties with her father. The Court also noted that if that be the case, she can’t claim any amount from him for marriage and education.
Sovakar Guru v. Odisha that entitlement of an employee or an ex-employee to his salary or pension, as the case may be, is an intrinsic part of his right to life under Article 21 and right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Phool Singh vs Amit Kumar that an unregistered agreement to sell, being in contravention of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be accepted by the Court for granting possession in favour of the claimant party.
Arun Kumar Singh v. Smt Jaya Singh that a mere nomination would not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee under an insurance policy and that a nominee is only an authorized hand to receive the insurance amount, which is subject to disbursement amongst the legal heirs under the law of succession governing the parties.
West Bengal v/s Dilip Ghosh that the State professing to be a welfare state cannot claim to have perfected its titled over a piece of land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens.
Anita Aggarwal v/s H.P. that Section 102 CrPC (Power of police officer to seize certain property) empowers the police officer to seize certain property on existence of a condition that the said property should have been alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances
Mohammad Sultan Nagoo vs Custodian Evacuee Property that the government has a responsibility to safeguard, maintain and effectively utilize evacuee properties.
L & T Finance Limited v Maharashtra that pendency of secured creditors applications for possession of secured assets is bad for financial health of the country.
Government of Kerala vs Joseph that merely a long period of possession, does not translate into the right of adverse possession.
Kannaian Naidu v Kamsala Ammal that a wife, who contributed to the acquisition of family assets by performing the household chores would be entitled to an equal share in the properties as she had indirectly contributed to its purchase.
Brij Narayan Shukla vs Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar Allahabad High Court that had allowed a suit for claiming rights by adverse possession and held that ownership and possession of land cannot be claimed through permissive possession arising from tenancy.
Revanasiddappa vs Mallikarjun the exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction has granted legitimacy and property rights to the children of void or voidable marriages in Hindu joint families.
Top