Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the state government to consider the feasibility of re-introducing freehold scheme. There are persons who are interested in getting their property freehold and obtain ownership rights of the land by paying certain charges to the state government.
The court passed this judgement on a petition filed by a local resident in this regard.
While passing the order, Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan directed the state to consider the feasibility of re-introducing the scheme on similar lines to what were introduced earlier in 2007 and 2012-2013.
During the course of hearing, it was contended by the state government that initially in 2006-2007 and from September 15, 2012, to March 14, 2013, they had introduced the freehold scheme for cases in which people were required to pay certain charges in order to get property freehold and obtain ownership rights of the land, but, the petitioner had failed to complete the codal formalities as required under the scheme and thus were not entitled to the benefit of the scheme.
Disposing of the petition, the High Court further observed that “this court is unable to find any legally justifiable object in introducing the scheme/policy of freehold only for a limited period from January 15 to February, 15, 2007, only for one month, and thereafter from September 15, 2012, to March 14, 2013, only six months, of which the benefit would have only been availed of by a fortunate few. Why the rest of the persons who are in similar situation have been denied the said benefit.
What, in fact, is the object sought to be achieved by introducing the scheme of freehold for a limited period is also not forthcoming?”
It further said that “now, therefore, what emerges is that an arbitrary, artificial or evasive classification has been made between the freehold owners of the property who got this benefit only because of the limited duration of the aforesaid schemes and those occupants who are continuously in possession of the land belonging to the government like the freehold owners from 1907 onwards.
But then there is practically no difference between either of the classes because the freehold holders prior to their depositing the requisite amount in the government treasury and after completion of certain other formalities, were actually in the same position as that of the petitioner.
The action of the state government in granting benefit of freehold scheme only to few persons on account of the short duration of such schemes, is, therefore, discriminatory and cannot be countenanced.”
The court passed this judgement on a petition filed by a local resident in this regard.
While passing the order, Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan directed the state to consider the feasibility of re-introducing the scheme on similar lines to what were introduced earlier in 2007 and 2012-2013.
During the course of hearing, it was contended by the state government that initially in 2006-2007 and from September 15, 2012, to March 14, 2013, they had introduced the freehold scheme for cases in which people were required to pay certain charges in order to get property freehold and obtain ownership rights of the land, but, the petitioner had failed to complete the codal formalities as required under the scheme and thus were not entitled to the benefit of the scheme.
Disposing of the petition, the High Court further observed that “this court is unable to find any legally justifiable object in introducing the scheme/policy of freehold only for a limited period from January 15 to February, 15, 2007, only for one month, and thereafter from September 15, 2012, to March 14, 2013, only six months, of which the benefit would have only been availed of by a fortunate few. Why the rest of the persons who are in similar situation have been denied the said benefit.
What, in fact, is the object sought to be achieved by introducing the scheme of freehold for a limited period is also not forthcoming?”
It further said that “now, therefore, what emerges is that an arbitrary, artificial or evasive classification has been made between the freehold owners of the property who got this benefit only because of the limited duration of the aforesaid schemes and those occupants who are continuously in possession of the land belonging to the government like the freehold owners from 1907 onwards.
But then there is practically no difference between either of the classes because the freehold holders prior to their depositing the requisite amount in the government treasury and after completion of certain other formalities, were actually in the same position as that of the petitioner.
The action of the state government in granting benefit of freehold scheme only to few persons on account of the short duration of such schemes, is, therefore, discriminatory and cannot be countenanced.”
No comments:
Post a Comment