Proposal to ban documents

22/05/2018

Alliance partners-PDP and BJP-differed in the State Cabinet with a resurgent BJP blocking a proposal brought by the PDP, which wanted to ban 'Power of Attorney' and 'Agreement to Sell' on the ground that non-State subjects were settling under the garb of these two judicial documents. The BJP Ministers forcefully opposed the move saying this would harm the interests of industry, trade and other sections in Jammu and was not acceptable to the party. Dy CM Kavinder Gupta, Housing and Urban Development Minister Sat Sharma, Forests Minister Rajiv Jasrotia and all other Cabinet Ministers of the BJP objected to the PDP proposal to ban 'Power of Attorney' and 'Agreement to Sell' citing that such a proposal was detrimental to the interests of Jammu and can't be allowed to be approved by the Cabinet. The PDP Ministers gave their own view point and suggested that the proposal should be through as these two documents were diluting the concept of State subjects.
This is for the second time that the BJP has blocked the proposal of similar nature. A bill resembling to today's proposal had been brought in the Cabinet by the PDP in 2016 but was blocked by the BJP in the Legislature. Initially, the BJP had joined hands with the PDP to approve the bill in Cabinet but realizing its gravity later, had blocked its implementation in the Legislature. Everything later went smoothly in the Cabinet as the PDP agreed to keep the proposal in abeyance. The BJP Ministers were of the view that some people have been doing trade using 'Power of Attorney' and 'Agreement to Sell' in the absence of State subjects, giving employment to youths. All these sections would be badly hit if these two documents are banned, they pointed out. In 2016, the PDP had mooted the proposal to bar transfer of land to non-State subjects on lease. The BJP had killed the proposal then to prevent protests from its core constituency. On June 23, 2016, the Jammu and Kashmir Cabinet decided to introduce a Bill in the ongoing Assembly session to amend the Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, which would have prevented transfer of land to non-State subjects in the Jammu region. The BJP was very much a party to this decision initially.
The amendment proposed by the State Revenue Ministry had sought curbs on taking possession of or construction activity on the property transferred, unless it was registered in accordance with the law. Interestingly, such restrictions already apply in Kashmir province.
The State's Transfer of Property Act read: 'No person shall take possession of or commence to build or build on any land in province of Kashmir which has been transferred or has been contracted to be transferred to him unless and until such transfer becomes valid under the provision of sub-section (1), Sub-section (3) of Section 138 of the Transfer of Property Act'. But the amendments proposed then had sought to substitute the words 'province of Kashmir' with the word 'State', thus making the law applicable to the entire State.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty