Court frames charges against former IAS officers in Roshni land scam 18/07/2023: Special Judge CBI Srinagar SC Katal today framed charges against former IAS officers Basharat Ahmad Dhar, Mehboob Iqbal, Ejaz Iqbal, Mushtaq Ahmad Malik, Akram Khan and Sajad Parvez in the much publicized Roshni land scam.
The FIR No 26/2015 initially came to be registered by the Vigilance Organization Kashmir (now ACB Kashmir), thereafter, the investigation of case was transferred to CBI when the High Court of J&K issued direction in PIL No. 19 of 2011.
Accordingly, CBI registered the case RC 1232020A0004 dated 20.11.2020 for offences under Sections 120-B/420/RPC & Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the CBI case, in the year 2007 ownership rights of State land measuring 07 kanals and 07 marlas under Khasra No. 216 min, 217 min & 218 min Estate Nursingh Garh site Shaheed Gunj were vested in favour of Sajjad Parvaiz at the rate of Rs 45 lakh per kanal by empowerment committee in its meeting held on 28.04.2007.
The beneficiary Sajad Parvez was not legal occupant in terms of Section 2(e) of State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to the Occupants) Act as he was only authorized agent of lessee Ashok Sharma and Bipin Sharma by virtue of special power of attorney.
After hearing both the sides, the court observed, “at the stage of the framing of charge the court has to see that whether the investigation agency has assembled the evidence which if taken on it’s face value is sufficient to presume that accused may have committed the offences 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 Investigation Officer”.
“In the case in hand the investigation officer has assembled the evidence & it reveals that the state land was leased in favour of the Ashok Sharma & Bipin Sharma and the lease was extended up to 13.04.2008. .The accused is attorney holder of lessee. No revenue record is available to indicate the legal/illegal possession of accused. However, the leasee during the continuation of lease period executed power of attorney in the month of December 2004 in favour of accused and on 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 main road Karan Nagar-Shaheed Gunj Srinagar”, the court said.
“The accused applied for bestowing the ownership right as per the provisions of State Land (Vesting of Ownership Right) Act. The price fixation committee headed by Khurshid Ahmad Ganie, the then Divisional Commissioner Kashmir decided that leasee 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 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 19.07.2007 and 28.04.2007 relied upon the earlier report and decided to confer the vesting of ownership right of whole land measuring 07 kanal 07 marla at the rate of Rs 45 lakh per kanal and the committee treated the property as commercial property and directed the applicant/accused to pay 60% of adopted amount which comes to Rs 1,98,45,000 minus 25% rebate if payment made within the three months.
The committee did not make any reference to the earlier recommendation of the Govt for resumption of land & 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 and decided to bestowed the ownership right to the accused.
The committee also in violation of the Section 4-1(a)(ii) State Land (Vesting of Ownership Rights to Occupants) Act recommended vesting of ownership right of 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 road cannot be considered for vesting ownership right and 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 09.08.2007 on the request of accused treated the land as residential category not commercial and assessed the amount payable under category of Rule 13(I)(iii)(a) for 02 kanals of land at the rate of 40% of adopted rate and for remaining 5 kanal 07 marlas under category 13(I)(iii)(b) at the rate of 50% of 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 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 case of Mustafa Bachcha located at MA Road Srinagar in respect of land falling within ceiling limit— 75 feet from the center 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 commercial category to give undue benefit to the accused whose land was treated as residential category. It shows that accused by abuse of their official position bestowed undue benefit.
“The evidence assembled by the investigation agency on it’s face value reveals that the accused officers in league with accused beneficiary abused their official position and bestowed undue benefit by vesting ownership rights of 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, the prima facie case is made out for framing the charge 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.
