Jasrotia strongly opposes land-related resolution in J&K Assembly, terms it legally unsustainable

• Raises concerns over sub judice status, recalls Roshni Act precedent, warns of “Pandora’s box” of encroachments and legal complications

JAMMU: BJP MLA from Jasrota, Rajiv Jasrotia, on Tuesday strongly opposed a resolution moved in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, raising serious legal, constitutional, and policy concerns, and terming the proposal as inappropriate and beyond the legislative domain.

Participating in the discussion, Jasrotia categorically stated that the matter under consideration is already sub judice and therefore should not have been brought before the House. He questioned the very justification of debating or attempting to legislate on an issue that is currently under judicial scrutiny, emphasizing that such actions could undermine the sanctity of the legal process.

Drawing a clear parallel with the controversial Roshni Act, Jasrotia remarked that the present resolution appears to be “another attempt” on similar lines. He reminded the House that the Roshni Scheme, once projected as a major initiative to address land ownership and generate substantial revenue, ultimately failed both legally and financially. Despite claims that it would generate nearly ₹25,000 crore, the actual revenue remained negligible, and the matter ended up in courts, where the Act was declared unconstitutional by a division bench.

He further pointed out that even after the Act was struck down, review petitions were filed and the issue continues to remain under judicial consideration. “When the matter is already sub judice and directly connected with similar issues, how can such a resolution be justified?” he questioned.

Jasrotia raised serious concerns about the broader implications of the resolution, particularly regarding the regularization of land under various categories such as government land, state land, private land, and Shyamalat land. He questioned whether individuals running private institutions or occupying such lands possess any legal right to seek regularization, especially in cases where encroachments have taken place after the stipulated cut-off periods.

Highlighting the gravity of the issue, he warned that accepting such a proposal would open a “Pandora’s box,” encouraging various forms of illegal encroachments across the Union Territory. He cautioned that if one category of encroachment is regularized, it would become increasingly difficult to control or prevent others, including encroachments on forest land and other protected categories.

He also referred to historical policy measures, including earlier provisions and orders related to the regularization of unauthorized state land dating back to 1957 by an order S 432 followed by another order LB-6 and subsequent administrative orders, questioning whether the current resolution seeks to revive or extend such frameworks without legal clarity.

Expressing concern over the intent behind the resolution moved by Masoodi, Jasrotia urged the member to clearly disclose whether the proposal seeks to benefit individuals even beyond previously fixed cut-off dates. He emphasized that any such move would not only complicate governance but also invite fresh legal challenges.

Describing the issue as extremely serious with far-reaching consequences, Jasrotia reiterated that the resolution is neither appropriate nor legally justified. He stressed that the House must act within its legal boundaries and respect the ongoing judicial process.

Concluding his address, the BJP MLA firmly opposed the resolution and urged that all aspects—including legal implications, past precedents, and potential misuse—be carefully considered before any such proposal is pursued. He maintained that safeguarding the rule of law and preventing misuse of public land must remain the top priority.