Above: With 19 influential persons involved in it, the land scam has brought Gulmarg notoriety/Photo: pexels.com
The Gulmarg Land Scam involving bureaucrats who illegally transferred state land to hoteliers by misusing provisions of the Roshni Act has seen the government cast a benevolent eye on the accused
By Pushp Saraf
Picturesque Gulmarg in the Kashmir Valley has earned a dubious distinction. It has become associated with a land scam involving 19 influential bureaucrats and business people of J&K. The scandal appears to be beset with many riddles. The judiciary’s nudge at every step is helping untangle them. The first additional district and sessions judge, Baramulla (Gulmarg is part of this district), had fixed the date for orders on framing the charges for July 6, then deferred it to July 20 and later to August 6.
It was the J&K Vigilance Organisation (rechristened the Anti-Corruption Bureau in October 2018) which had exposed the alleged fraud. It registered an FIR on March 6, 2009. Cases were filed against eight bureaucrats and 11 others for illegally transferring about 45 kanals (one kanal is equal to 505.85 sq m) and 65 marlas (one marla is equal to 25.29 sq m) of state land in Gulmarg to hoteliers. This was done by misusing the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001.
The Act provided for the transfer of ownership rights of state land to occupants against a cost determined by a government-appointed committee. It was popularly called the “Roshni” Act as the proceeds from transfers were to be used for financing power projects. The current governor’s administration repealed the Act on November 28, 2018, for having failed to achieve its objective. That is a different story.
Although dead and gone, the “Roshni” Act continues to generate more heat than light because past actions taken in its name stand scrutiny. In 2008, the State Vigilance Organisation found that an empowered government panel had entered into a “criminal conspiracy” with business persons to legalise unauthorised occupants. It registered cases against members of the committee, namely, Sheikh Mehboob Iqbal, a former divisional commissioner of Kashmir division; Baseer Ahmed Khan, then deputy commissioner of Baramulla and currently divisional commissioner of Kashmir; Garib Singh, then tehsildar, Tangmarg; Farooq Ahmed Lone, then CEO, Gulmarg Development Authority (GDA); Farooq Ahmed Shah, then additional deputy commissioner; Sarmad Hafiz, then joint director, tourism department; Rafi Ahmad, then assistant commissioner, revenue, Baramulla; and Ghulam MohiuDin Shah, who was naib tehsildar, Kunzar. It did likewise in the case of alleged beneficiaries.
The Vigilance Organisation cited specific instances of wrongdoing: misuse of official position to transfer land earmarked for development of tourism infrastructure under the Master Plan of GDA, benefitting ineligible persons, receipt of applications after the cut-off date of March 31, 2007, with ulterior motives by manipulating records, giving false information that the land was not government property and was not required for any public purpose, wilfully ignoring the information that the land was already earmarked for construction of hutments in the Master Plan and was non-transferable, and impermissible inclusion of attorney holders among the beneficiaries.
It registered an FIR under Sections 5-1d (if a person, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage) and 5 (2) (punishment with imprisonment for a term varying from one year to seven years also liable to fine) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 120-B (punishment for criminal conspiracy), 468 (punishment for forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (punishment for using as genuine a forged or electronic record document) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 17 of the “Roshni” Act (penalty for a person who intentionally makes a false statement, intentionally produces a false document, or files a statement which is false or incorrect to his knowledge). The Act says that such a person shall be punished by the tehsildar having jurisdiction in the area with a fine which may extend to Rs 20,000 but shall not be less than Rs 5,000 and a revenue officer or official making any wrong entry or issuing a false or incorrect report or certificate in respect of any state land shall be liable to punishment which may extend up to five years of imprisonment and fine which may extend up to Rs 50,000.
The case would have gathered dust but for the judiciary and a few public-spirited citizens and lawyers. The judicial prodding has taken care of bureaucratic indifference, which has been baffling. The government has looked at the accused officers with a benevolent eye. At least two serving officers mentioned in the FIR, Farooq Ahmed Lone and Sarmad Hafiz, have been elevated to the IAS.
There is difference in opinion among government departments about the applicability of the “Roshni” Act to the concerned land. The vigilance case is built on the premise that there was violation because the land allotted to the GDA for the implementation of the Master Plan could not be listed under the “Roshni” Act. In contrast, the opinion of the law department and advocate general is that the land was transferred to the GDA three years after the “Roshni” Act was enforced and hence the rights of the people who occupied the land in 2002 could not be denied, provided “the purpose of utilisation of said land is the same as provided in the Master Plan”.
The opinions of the law department and the advocate general are recorded in an order of former High Court judge Justice MK Hanjura on October 15, 2018, on a petition filed by Maqbool Iqbal who has argued that he has been “maliciously” implicated. On behalf of Khan, it has been stated that he was implicated despite having kept the process of allotment on hold in July 2008.
Contradictory views and actions do raise important questions. It cannot be easily explained how the Union government which gave sanction for the prosecution of Khan leading to his arrest on September 23, 2013, has now given him extension as divisional commissioner of Kashmir beyond the date of superannuation on June 30, 2019, with the matter still pending in court. Earlier on March 4, 2013, Khan was removed as deputy commissioner of Srinagar following a directive by a division bench of the High Court headed by former Chief Justice MM Kumar. An observation made by Kumar then, albeit in a different context, that “a public servant who is to hold such sensitive position must be above the needle of suspicion, like Caesar’s wife” is now part of an application challenging Khan’s extension as divisional commissioner.
The application was filed by a social activist, Prof SK Bhalla, who is a co-petitioner with Sheikh Mohammad Shafi, son of former MP Sheikh Abdul Rehman, in the PIL seeking directions of the High Court for prosecution of senior IAS and Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS) officers whose names figure in the Gulmarg land scam and other similar FIRs. The application says that Khan has bounced back each time using “his unhealthy clout in the corridors of power”.
A division bench of the J&K High Court comprising Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Sanjeev Kumar has issued notices to Khan as well as the Union home and personnel ministries, state chief secretary and others against his one-year extension.
The central government says this has been done “as a special case, in public interest, in relaxation of All India Services (Death cum Retirement) Benefits) Rules, 1958, without it being quoted as a precedent case in future”. Lawyer Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed has argued that Khan has not yet been given a clean chit in the Gulmarg land scam and the same personnel ministry that has approved his extension had given sanction for his prosecution in 2013.
It was following the intervention by a division bench on August 28, 2012, that a charge sheet was filed against Mehboob Iqbal, who had by then retired, and 17 others on September 25 in the same year. Again, the Court had to intervene and direct the government to forward papers for grant of prosecution of Khan, as required in the case of a serving IAS officer, to the Union government. Following the sanction, a supplementary challan was filed against him on September 23, 2013, and clubbed with the earlier charge sheet.
Governor Satya Pal Malik is irked by the level of corruption in J&K as is evident from his utterance, albeit totally misplaced, on July 21 calling upon militants to “kill those who have looted the wealth of Kashmir” which created a huge storm. He has admitted that as a governor he ought to have been careful but said he had spoken “in a fit of anger and frustration” as “many political leaders and big bureaucrats are steeped in corruption here”.
But what has he done to clean the Augean stables right under his nose? Gulmarg is a case in point.