DB directives in PIL challenging Roshni Act

10/03/2018

JAMMU, Mar 9: In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled Ankur Sharma and State of J&K and Others challenging the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, which is popularly known as 'Roshni Act', A Division Bench of State High Court Jammu Wing Comprising First Puisne Judge Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar and Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides admit PIL for hearing and issued post admission notice to the State.
Division Bench further observed that Senior Additional Advocate General, stating that there are number of beneficiaries, who have been given ownership rights by the Competent Authority and it is pointed out by Sr. Adv DC Raina that in some cases, lease hold rights have been granted and their numbers have also to be verified. Taking into consideration the rights of the persons which may be affected consequent to a decision rendered in the writ petition challenging the vires of the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the occupants), Act 2001, Division Bench also directed the State to submit the list of beneficiaries before this Court and also make a proper publication in newspaper that WPPIL No.41/2014, challenge to the Roshni Act, is pending before the High Court for consideration and also persons, who are interested or likely to be affected, are entitled to cause their appearance in the proceedings.
Division Bench also directed State to submit the list of beneficiaries before the Registry of this Court for publication in a newspaper having wide circulation in the Jammu and Kashmir State. The Publication charges shall be deposited by the respondents-State within a period of two weeks.
In the PIL it has been submitted that the Act has been dubbed as illegal on the ground that it violates the doctrine of equality and creates a special class of society for conferring undue benefits at the will and whims of the political entities.The legislation was conceived to reward the violators of law, who instead of being booked for grabbing the State land, were conferred with the ownership rights and the law being a unique piece of legislation on the statue book cannot be allowed to sustain in an organized society governed by rule of law, the PIL said.
“Nowhere in the country such a legislation was ever enacted to give premium to those who indulged in land grabbing as such legislation being against public policy and constitutional mandate is required to be declared unconstitutional and the land so regularized in favour of illegal occupants is required to be retrieved by setting aside all orders of regularizations", the PIL said.
In the PIL, reference has also been made of Apex Court observation in case titled Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, whereby it has been emphasized that State or its agencies cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and officers of the State.
In this case, the Supreme Court has further observed that distribution of largesse like allotment of land by the State and its agencies should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favoritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion.JNF

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty