SRINAGAR: Former IAS officers Basharat Ahmad Dhar, Mehboob Iqbal, Ejaz Iqbal, Mushtaq Ahmad Malik, Akram Khan, and Sajad Parvez have been charged by Special Judge CBI Srinagar SC Katal in the Roshni land scam.
The case, initially registered under FIR No 26/2015 by the Vigilance Organisation Kashmir (now ACB Kashmir), was later transferred to the CBI following a direction from the High Court of J&K in PIL No 19 of 2011.
The CBI registered the case RC 1232020A0004 on November 20, 2020, charging the accused under Sections 120-B/420/RPC & Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI alleges that in 2007, ownership rights of state land measuring 07 kanals and 07 marlas were given to Sajjad Parvaiz at the rate of Rs 45 lakh per kanal by the empowerment committee in a meeting held on April 28, 2007 at Estate Nursingh Garh site Shaheed Gunj.
The beneficiary Sajad Parvez was not a legal occupant in terms of Section 2(e) of the State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to the Occupants) Act as he was only an authorised agent of lessee Ashok Sharma and Bipin Sharma by virtue of special power of attorney.
After hearing both sides, the court observed, ‘at the stage of the framing of charges, the court has to see whether the investigation agency has assembled the evidence which, if taken on its face value, is sufficient to presume that the accused may have committed the offenses as mentioned in the charge sheet or no evidence is available to go for trial of the case,’ adding ‘the court at this stage cannot decide the reliability of oral or documentary evidence assembled by the Investigation Officer.’
‘In the case in hand, the investigation officer has assembled the evidence, and it reveals that the state land was leased in favour of Ashok Sharma & Bipin Sharma, and the lease was extended up to April 13, 2008. The accused is the attorney holder of the lessee. No revenue record is available to indicate the legal/illegal possession of the accused. However, the lessee during the continuation of the lease period executed a power of attorney in the month of December 2004 in favour of the accused, and on the strength of power of attorney, claims the possession of the State land measuring 07 kanals 07 marlas under Khasra No. 216 min, 217 min & 218 min situated at Nursingh Ghar on the main road Karan Nagar-Shaheed Gunj Srinagar,’ the court said.
‘The accused applied for bestowing the ownership right as per the provisions of the State Land (Vesting of Ownership Right) Act. The price fixation committee headed by Khurshid Ahmad Ganie, the then Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, decided that the lessee has created the third-party interest over the leased property. As such, the case is not covered for vesting of ownership right. The same committee also sought guidance from the Administrative Department, which directed to proceed for the resumption of the land under relevant provisions of law.
After three years, the accused again filed a fresh application for vesting ownership rights of land in his favour, and at that time, the committee headed by Basharat Ahmad Dhar, the then Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, in the meeting held on July 19, 2007 and April 28, 2007, relied upon the earlier report and decided to confer the vesting of ownership right of the whole land measuring 07 Kanal 07 Marla at the rate of Rs 45 lakh per Kanal, and the committee treated the property as a commercial property and directed the applicant/accused to pay 60% of the adopted amount, which comes to Rs 1,98,45,000 minus 25% rebate if payment made within three months.
The committee did not make any reference to the earlier recommendation of the Government for the resumption of land and deliberately ignored the direction of the Government to give undue advantage to the accused. Moreover, the committee, in violation of the provision of the act, decided to bestow the ownership right to the accused.
The committee also, in violation of Section 4-1(a)(ii) of the State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to Occupants) Act, recommended vesting of ownership right of the whole land for which the accused was not entitled. As per that provision, for interior roads like Shaheed Gunj – Karan Nagar Road, 50 feet from the center of the road cannot be considered for vesting ownership right, and a portion of the land is within these parameters.
The price fixation committee headed by Mehboob Iqbal, the then Divisional Commissioner, in the meeting held on August 09, 2007, on the request of the accused, treated the land as a residential category, not commercial, and assessed the amount payable under the category of Rule 13(I)(iii)(a) for 02 kanals of land at the rate of 40% of the adopted rate and for the remaining 5 kanal 07 marlas under category 13(I)(iii)(b) at the rate of 50% of the adopted amount. So the total amount payable as per the committee was Rs 1,56,37,500 instead of Rs 1,98,45,000 (minus rebate of 25% if paid within three months).
The change of the nature of land category from commercial to residential caused a loss to the tune of Rs 31, 55,625 to the exchequer and corresponding gains to the accused. The same committee deducted more than 11 marlas of land in the case of K K Amila and 16 marlas of land in the case of Mustafa Bachcha located at MA Road Srinagar in respect of land falling within the ceiling limit— 75 feet from the centre road, but the same standard was wilfully ignored in this case to give undue advantage to the accused.
The land of Dhar was treated as a commercial category to give undue benefit to the accused whose land was treated as a residential category. It shows that the accused, by abuse of their official position, bestowed undue benefit.
‘The evidence assembled by the investigation agency on its face value reveals that the accused officers, in league with accused beneficiaries, abused their official position and bestowed undue benefits by vesting ownership rights to prime State land,’ the court said, adding ‘at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons, and discharge is the only remedy.’
‘Hence, a prima facie case is made out for framing the charges under Section 120-B/RPC read with Section 5(1)(d)/5(2) of J&K PC Act against six accused, and they have been charge-sheeted accordingly,’ the court said.
