JAMMU, Sept 13 : The State Vigilance Organisation (SVO) today registered a case and conducted raids at various place in Jammu and Rajouri districts in connection with allotment of 600 kanals land near Nandni tunnel to some private persons.
An official handout issued by the SVO said it has registered case against nine persons including Sachin Dev Singh, then Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Jammu, Shashi Khajuria, Secretary, Dharmarath Trust Council and beneficiaries Ranjeev Gupta son of Chajju Ram Gupta of Talab Tillo, Chetan Nagpal son of Davinder Nagpal, Nitan Nagpal and Ritin Nagpal sons of Kewal Nagpal, Sahil Nagpal son of Pradeep Nagpal, Sanjeev Nagpal and Rajan Nagpal sons of Sita Ram Nagpal, all residents of Gandhi Nagar.
The case has been registered under Prevention of Corruption Act, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC in FIR No. 35/2017.
After registration of case, the Vigilance teams conducted simultaneous raids at houses of the involved persons at various places in Jammu and Rajouri district and recovered incriminating documents pertaining to the case, the hand out said.
Investigations conducted by the SVO revealed that the State Government had allotted State land measuring 600 kanals situated at village Junakha Near Nandni tunnel in favour of Rani Sahiba wife of late Ram Singh Surgwasi with the conditions that the land should not be used for construction, cutting of trees and grazing of cattle etc.
The status of the property was “State land”.
The record further revealed that the land in question was under the ownership of “Sri Sarkar Doulatmand” with the name of “Deudi Mabarak Sri Raja Sahib Bahadur Ram Singh Sahib Soragwasi” as cultivator mentioned in it.
The land comprised of “Talab, Gair Mumkin abadi, Jharh and Bagicha” etc. The said land remained in the illegal possession of different parties including Jagdeep Singh S/o Saroop Singh etc. and Dharmarth Trust and others at different points of time. However, according to the handout, at present the land in question was under the descendants of illegal possession of late Jagdeep Singh.
As part of conspiracy, Shashi Khajuria, Secretary to the Council Dharmarth Trust filed a suit in the office of Sachin Dev Singh, then ACR Revenue Jammu against descendants of Jagdeep Singh S/o Saroop Singh and others for cancelling their Girdwaries and entering the name of Dharmarth Trust in the ownership and Girdwari column in their place.
During pendency of the case, both the parties were shown to have entered in the compromise in favour of Dharmarth Trust.
“Since the descendants of late Jagdeep Singh were already illegal occupants, they had no claim over the property. Further, neither any compromise was admissible because of State land. In the garb of above mentioned suit and unrealistic Sehat Kashat mutation was entered in the revenue records and Dharmarth Trust was shown as the legal occupant of the State land in question,” the handout said.
It added that Sachin Dev Singh summoned the Patwari in his office and made him to sign the copy of record (Record of Rights) already prepared by an official posted in the office of ACR Jammu.
The report mentioned was prepared for perusal and handed over to Ranjeev Gupta, one of the lease holders. Thereafter, some insertions were made in the report whereby Dharmarth Trust has been shown absolute owner and legal occupant of the said land in the report.
The Dharmarth Trust used the same forged report and leased out the land in question to a private businessman namely Ranjeev Gupta and other beneficiaries.
The lease has been registered in the Court of Sub-Judge Jammu for Rs. 2.90 crores and has changed hands in the transaction for transfer of Government property.
“In view of the lease deed, the lease holder has been authorized to use the land in question whereas the Government Order whereby the then Rani Sahiba was permitted to use the land was conditional by restricting the use of land for construction/cutting of trees and grazing of cattle etc, the accused persons managed to register the lease on the basis of forged Revenue report under suspicious manner as the nature of the land does not allow such commercial activity on the said land,” the Vigilance handout said.