Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 18: Coming down heavily on the unauthorised occupation of public land, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, to identify and demarcate State and Shamilat Deh land in village Salia and initiate action against encroachments strictly under law.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani made it clear that public land cannot be converted into private property through prolonged or illegal occupation.
The directions were passed while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation filed by Bashir Ahmad Wani, who had alleged encroachment upon State and Khacharai land falling under Survey No. 499 at Village Salia, Tehsil Mattan, District Anantnag.
The PIL also raised allegations of misappropriation of Government funds in works executed under MGNREGA, construction of Individual Household Latrines under the Swachh Bharat Mission and alleged financial irregularities in Government Higher Secondary School, Salia.
The official status report revealed that the land measuring seven kanals and 11 marlas was recorded as Shamilat Deh under Section 4. Out of the total area, two residential houses had been constructed over two kanals, while a cowshed occupied another 18 marlas.
The Bench observed that the houses and cowshed had been raised on Shamilat Deh land and, therefore, could not legitimately continue to occupy the land.
The court underlined that Revenue Authorities are under a bounden duty to safeguard State land from illegal occupation and cannot remain silent spectators while public property is encroached upon.
It directed the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, to ensure proper identification and demarcation of the land and to proceed against every encroachment found during the exercise.
The court, however, ordered that action must be taken strictly in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice and providing an opportunity of hearing to all affected persons.
On the allegations of misappropriation under MGNREGA and the Swachh Bharat Mission, the Bench refused to conduct a roving inquiry in the absence of specific particulars or supporting evidence.
The court also questioned the petitioner’s bona fides, noting that he had not approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau or the police before moving the High Court. It nevertheless granted him liberty to approach the appropriate investigating agency if he possessed credible material.
The grievance concerning alleged misuse of school funds was also held to have lost significance after the Government informed the court that it had taken over the management of the school.