|
Bansal kin, Punjab ex-DGP Gill in dock over land grab Chandigarh, July 15 The panel also, prima facie, found “deliberate attempt to create a forged document” in case of land given on 33-year lease to JTL Education Foundation, allegedly run by relatives of former Railway Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal. The report comes as an embarrassment for the Shiromani Akali Dal, as Gill was not only picked by the government for the DGP’s post, but had also unsuccessfully contested the Assembly elections from Moga on the party ticket. In its report submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court this morning, the panel said it was told during the probe that the land in Sainimajra village in Kharar subdivision of Mohali district belonged to former ADGP Paramdip Singh, son of Nachattar Singh, resident of house number 500, Sector 16. But, it was for the state government to establish his credentials. The panel added: “A huge chunk of land, measuring 1,199 kanal and one marla, which was ‘shamlat hasab rasal jar khewat’, was illegally and erroneously taken possession of by one Paramdip Singh.” The panel added an order passed by a naib tehsildar on January 27, 2012, in connection with the land and subsequent correction of “girdwari” or cultivation right in his name was “wholly illegal”. “Prima facie, the order and correction of the ‘girdwari’ are in collusion with the revenue staff…,” the panel added. Referring to “shamlat” land in Sanauli village in Mohali district, the panel added “jamabandi” for 2010-11 showed that 102 bigha and 18 biswa land was given on 33-year lease to JTL Education Foundation by the gram panchayat. The trustees were Mithan Lal Singla, Sandeep Gupta and Chetan Singla, the panel said. The matter has already hit news headlines as the members of the trust “have been linked as close relations” of former Railways Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal. “It, prima facie, seems that there is a deliberate attempt to create a forged document in the shape of a lease deed, which is in the register of the Sub Registrar… It is obvious that two separate independent copies were prepared. In one, the top of the document says 33 years, but in the other 99 years,” the panel observed. It did not go deep into the issue as the high court was already seized of the matter.
|
|
HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |