J&K can’t appoint ‘Lokayukta’ due to its UT status
Srinagar, Oct 28: A heated debate erupted in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly on Tuesday after a private member’s bill seeking to grant ownership rights to those who had constructed houses on government and community land was rejected, with Chief Minister Omar Abdullah strongly opposing the proposal, warning that its passage would “open floodgates for land grab”.
The bill, introduced by PDP MLA Wahid Para, sought to confer proprietary rights to residents occupying such lands, citing the ‘right to shelter’ under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Chief Minister firmly rejected the idea, calling it an attempt to legalise illegal encroachments. “How can we pass a bill that helps the land mafia and illegal encroachers? It cannot even be said whether they are genuine residents of Jammu and Kashmir or have recently settled here,” Omar told reporters on the sidelines of a function.
He was responding to a question on his government not supporting the private member’s bill brought by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) MLA for providing proprietary rights to those who have built houses on government land.
Earlier, Para was asked to withdraw the bill but the PDP leader attempted to invoke founder of the National Conference and former chief minister Sheikh Abdullah’s land to tiller policy and the Roshni Act of Farooq Abdullah in 2002.
In a heated exchange, Chief Minister Abdullah dismissed the proposal, drawing parallels to the highly controversial and eventually defunct ‘Roshni’ scheme and recalled that the original 2002 Roshni scheme, initiated under his father’s government, aimed to convert leasehold rights into freehold rights for people who had legal possession of land before the start of militancy.
The revenue generated was intended for power generation projects, he said.
The chief minister noted that the subsequent PDP-Congress government under Ghulam Nabi Azad removed the pre-militancy cutoff date, leading to controversies, including allegations of ‘land jihad’, and the scheme’s eventual rejection by the court, where the government “could not defend” it.
Abdullah stressed that the current bill goes far beyond Roshni, seeking to legalise illegal occupation of state land, not merely regularise existing legal leaseholds.
“This proposal of the MLA is beyond the Roshni scheme. The bill does not put a cutoff timeline,” he said, adding “if this is passed, then I will go tomorrow and build a nice house on a piece of land, and that land will be in my name. We cannot do that.”
Countering the argument by Para about the senior Abdullah and that the government’s stance was politically motivated or driven by fear of groups who used terms like ‘land jihad’, the chief minister sought the legacy of his grandfather, Sheikh Abdullah, and the historic ‘Land to the Tiller’ reforms, stating, “Land to Tiller (law implemented by senior Abdullah) was giving rights to tillers, not land grabbers”.
“There is a huge difference between land to tiller and what you are proposing,” he added.
The chief minister also clarified that the government is committed to providing housing for the landless through existing programs like the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), under which government land is allotted for house construction.
He maintained, however, that the government cannot reward illegal occupation.
“We will give them five acres of land. Those who do not have a house, we will give them. But then you connect it with the fact that the one who is sitting illegally on the land… I will give him free land. We will not do that.”
Talking about the fear factor as mentioned by Para while pointing towards the BJP benches, Omar hit back saying “you (Para) said somewhere that we work because of their fear. If we had to work because of their fear, then we would have brought them to this side (Treasury bench) and worked together.”
The chief minister made it clear that it was the PDP which was bringing in the BJP and religion into discussion on his bill. “I did not use that thing to reject this bill. I said that you will open a floodgate,” he added.
Referring to Para’s remarks that the bill would also benefit the chief minister’s relatives, he said, “My relatives were not illegal occupants, they had a lease which was violated (by the other side)”.
“I would not bring such a bill even for my relatives. Then you bring religion and region into it,” he said, opposing the introduction of the bill.
After Para refused to withdraw the bill, Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather put it to vote, but it received the support of only two members. The bill was defeated by the voice vote.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Tuesday said the Union territory cannot appoint a Lokayukta as only states have the powers to establish the anti-corruption agency.
CPI(M) MLA M Y Tarigami had moved a private members’ Bill in the Assembly to establish the Lokayukta in Jammu and Kashmir to inquire into allegations of corruption against public servants.
However, the chief minister informed the House that Section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, provides for the anti-corruption agency in every state.
“But, we are not a state. When we become a state, we will do it. But as a UT, it will be difficult for us,” Abdullah said, as he requested Tarigami to withdraw the Bill.
However, the CPI(M) MLA asked what is the way of making the society corruption-free at all levels, including legislators and ministers, till the time statehood is restored to J-K.
“We don’t know what timeframe has been set by the Union government on the restoration of statehood. It has not happened so far. Till then, what will be the mechanism? There are institutions for this purpose in the UTs. Maybe we can have a similar arrangement till we get our statehood back,” the CPI(M) MLA from Kulgam said.
In response, Abdullah said it is not that J-K does not have a framework.
“As a UT, we fall under all the laws and investigating agencies of the Union government. We all fall in that ambit. The (J-K) Anti-Corruption Bureau has its own ambit. Everyone, including us, is concerned about corruption, but it is not as if there is no mechanism,” the chief minister said.
Tarigami withdrew the private members’ Bill after the government opposed its introduction
