Srinagar Dec 05 (KNS): The recent statement of NC leader Omar Abdullah regarding the legality of Roshni Act on the plea that it was passed by the state legislature and accorded concurrence by the then governor is misleading asserted Brig Veteran Anil Gupta, Spokesperson of Bharatiya Janata Party.
“As per Section 9(b) of the Constitution of J&K, any legislation concerning rights of permanent residents of the state could be passed only with 2/3rd majority in both houses of the legislature. Throwing the statute book to wind, a law was passed by ‘voice vote’ to sell encroached government lands to the encroacher themselves. It came to be known as Jammu And Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants), Act 2001. Dr Farooq Abdullah was the Chief Minister then,” stated Brig Gupta.
Ownership could be given only if the unauthorized occupants were permanent residents of J&K - natural persons or companies - fulfilling conditions under governing law. Initially 1990 was set as the cut off for encroachment on the state land.
The original Act was amended twice subsequently in 2004 & 2007, again without it being passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of each House. The later amendments were motivated and an open invitation for encroaching government land and get it regularised. While the original Act entitled only those under unauthorized occupation for a prolonged period before the passing of the Act, subsequent amendments diluted it and moved to unauthorized occupation on a cut-off date initially of 2004 by Mufti Mohammad Syed and later open-ended by Ghulam Nabi Azad. Amendments made in quick succession by Azad enabled open loot of the government land and allowed many politicians, their relatives, government and police officials to encroach upon prime property and have it regularised at dirt-cheap rates. Lot of non-agricultural land was sold at agricultural rates, asserted Brig Gupta.
Why did the then Governor Girish Chander Saxena accord concurrence is a matter of separate investigation but cannot be used to justify the blatant violation of the Constitution emphasised Brig Gupta.
Reacting to the plea, “elect only PAGD candidates since they are the best candidates to fight to restore what we have lost,” Brig Gupta dubbed it as another attempt to mislead the voters. The elections are being held for the DDCs which enjoy no residuary powers. The responsibilities of the DDCs are laid down and include preparation of 5 year plans, perspective planning, infrastructure development within the district, disaster management, social welfare, management of rural amenities and health cum veterinary facilities, rural livelihood generation, education and child care.
Voters are unlikely to fall prey to the dirty tricks of Gupkaris since vast majority of them have claimed their preference for development (vikas) and employment (rozgar) asserted Brig Gupta(KNS).