JAMMU, May 10: High Court today issued notice to Commissioner /Secretary Revenue Department, Divisional Commissioner Jammu, Deputy Commissioner, Jammu and Tehsildar Settlement Jammu directing them to maintain status -quo of 41 kanals and 13 marlas of state land at village Lalyal in Jammu tehsil.
The directives were passed by Justice Mohammed Yaqoob Mir of High Court in a petition filed by Satish Sharma son of Madan Lal Sharma Member Parliament challenging his eviction over this land. The Court has also issued notices to these officers returnable within four weeks and directed them to file the objections within the notice period.
Satish Sharma filed the writ petition through Additional Advocate Amit Gupta and Court after hearing the senior advocate K S Johal assisted by Advocate Amit Gupta directed the maintenance of status quo.
In the petition it has been alleged that the petitioner is cultivating position of the State agriculture land for the last over 10 years. The petitioner’s, case for regularization under Roshni scheme was rejected by the district Collector Jammu on March 30 this year on the ground that the land is “Gair Mumkin Darya’’ as per copy of Khasra Girdawari.
The petitioner has questioned his eviction on several grounds and the court after considering the arguments directed to maintain status -quo.
It is worthwhile to mention here that petitioner Satish Sharma has enclosed a certificate dated November, 29, 2010 issued by Tehsildar Akhnoor wherein it is certified that Satish Sharma, son of Madan Lal Sharma of Pallattan tehsil Akhnoor has been the owner of land in village Dhanger (18 kanals and 9 marlas) and in village Ambaran (06 kanals and 06 Marlas). So the total land measuring 24 kanals and 15 marlas in tehsil Akhnoor is possessed by him.
It may be also recalled that the name of Satish Sharma also figured in fresh status report filed by then Divisional Commissioner Jammu, Dr Pawan Kotwal in PIL titled Prof S K Bhalla vs State wherein it was mentioned that claims of Satish Sharma for regularization of his illegal possession was rejected on the ground that same was not covered under Roshni Act.