Thread by @barandbench

Supreme Court to shortly hear an appeal by a number of Roshni Act beneficiaries as “authorised occupants and leaseholders of Nazool land. Beneficiaries claim that they were not even heard by the J&K High Court as it passed the directions
#RoshniAct #JammuAndKashmir
#SupremeCourt

What is the Roshni Land Scam and the Jammu & Kashmir High Court judgment? Read our explainer to know more.

#RoshniAct #SupremeCourt
#JammuAndKashmir

barandbench.com/columns/litiga…

Justice NV Ramana led bench of the #SupremeCourt assembles

Senior Adv Mukul Rohatgi for petitioners: The HC was looking at unauthorised encroached of the land. We have been the lawful occupants

SG Tushar Mehta: so far as illegal encroachers are concerned Govt will oppose but for petitioners we will do nothing without notice

Justice Surya Kant: There are several petitioners before us. One of the common ground is that the petitioners have not been heard.

Rohatgi: I have not filed a review, the state itself has filed a review. The state has approached HC

Justice Surya Kant: The question is can parallel proceedings continue?
Mr Rohatgi you have not filed a review but similarly placed persons have filed review in HC

Rohatgi: How can CBI be directed to investigate?

Justice Kant: After Dec 4 and hearing the UT, the HC has specified the directions.. how can parallel proceedings continue

Adv Neeraj Kishan Kaul: state review is limited to single land holders. We are genuine lease holders. Now notices have been issued to us

Justice Kant: The UT in its review application is drawing a distinction between encroachers and lawful lease holders

Justice NV Ramana: Can I have a say?

Rohatgi: Ofcourse

Justice Ramana: it appears from the order some of the other petitions were not listed. Those pleas relied on newspaper reports etc

Justice Ramana: some of the petitioners are in possession since the 1970s.

(Justice Aniruddha Bose recieves a call from Justice Ramana)

SG: whatever Justice Kant says is a fact. State govt cannot stop lawful occupants but land grabbers cannot be stayed. If the SLP is dismissed and review is allowed then it will be conflicting. Petitioners can approach the review bench

SC: yes all petitioners should approach the review bench and all of them should be heard by HC. We will direct accordingly

SG: Yes UT has made it clear that encroachers and land grabbers cannot claim to be exempted from the HC order

Senior Adv PS Naramsimha reads the HC December 8 order.

Senior Adv Arvind Datar: What has happened is the mail PIL is against land grabbers and encroachers. Pleadings are not about authorised occupants. Review is posted end of Dec and it was taken up in chamber and dismissed.

Senior Adv Kailash Vasdev: In the judgment Mr Datar points out its an omnibus judgment considering all. Keep this matter in abeyance and let the review be decided

SG: therefore there will be 1000 SLPs keep that in mind.

SG: Petitioners prima facie does not seem to be illegal encroachers

Justice Ramana: We are not against illegal encroachers. We will record your statement

SC Order: Subsequent to filing of this SLP, the review by UT and other beneficiaries is listed on December 21 at the J&K HC.

SC: until and unless reviews are decided we can't do much

Rohatgi: Let the matter be adjourned to January and review be decided.. meanwhile let no coercive action be taken

SC: SG has made a statement that petitioners will not be disturbed

Rohatgi: That is good enough for us.

Supreme Court adjourns the case to last week of January. Let the review be decided by HC on Dec 21. The pendency of this case will not come in way of any of these petitioners approaching the J&K HC in a review petition.

[Roshni Land Scam] "There cannot be parallel proceedings:" Supreme Court decides to wait for Jammu & Kashmir High Court to decide review petition [FULL STORY]

#roshnilandscam #SupremeCourt
#JammuAndKashmir

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…