Judgement
& Justice
GIST OF JIGME N. KAZI’S OBSERVER
BUILDING, NAM NANG SITE CASE
Jigme
N. Kazi’s Observer Building site dispute at Nam Nang, Gangtok, which began in
1998, has been going on for 18 years. The case has been built on an allegation
against Jigme N. Kazi levelled by Urban Development and Housing Department
(UD&HD) and upheld by Buildings & Housing Department (B&HD) and various
authorities, including courts.
The
gist of the case is as follows:
1.
In 1996 a site measuring 1089 sq.
ft. was allotted to Jigme N. Kazi’s Hill Media Publications, publishers of
Sikkim Observer, an independent English weekly established in 1986.
2.
Due to various reasons Kazi
encroached some portion of the land/space on all four sides of his building.
The space – and not land – encroached on first and second storeys of the
building is around 1,400 to 1,600 sq. ft. On the ground floor the encroached
area is less than 300 sq. ft.
3.
On 20.12.2000 UD&HD alleged
that Kazi had encroached 1,628 sq. ft. of land at the back side of the building which was to be used for Chintan
Bhawan’s banquet-cum-conference hall. (Annexure
– I)
4.
In his letter to the East District
Collector, dated 05.04.2001, Principal
Chief Engineer-cum-Secretary, B&HD, alleged Kazi had encroached an area of
land measuring 1,628 sq. ft. “at the
back side his building which falls under the Assembly complex.” (Annexure – II)
5.
In his show cause notice to Kazi,
dated 07.06.2001, Principal Chief Engineer-cum-Secretary, B&HD, alleged:
“...you have encroached upon an area measuring 1628 sft. of land beside the
allotted site.” (Annexure – III)
6.
While sketch map on site
encroachment provided by UD&HD and accepted by B&HD show that area
encroached is on all four sides of the building, the two departments alleged
that the encroached area (1,628 sq. ft.) of land falls at the back side of the
building. UD&HD map shows that the encroached area at the back side of the
building and outside the retaining wall and boundary fencing of Chintan
Bhawan is only 834.75 sq. ft. and not 1,628 sq. ft. as alleged. (Annexure – IV)
7.
The contradictory and misleading
information provided by UD&HD and B&HD and upheld by the courts is
false, baseless and mischievous.
8.
When the case came up in East DC
court (Prescribed Authority) in 2005 Kazi asked for re-inspection of the site
to show the encroached portion. The Commission formed by the DC undertook a
joint inspection of the site. The report of the Commission pointed out that an
area of 1,449 sq. ft. and not 1, 628 sq. ft., had been encroached on all four
sides. However, DC’s order did not take note of the Commission’s report and
ordered for demolition of the encroached area. Commission’s report and sketch
map is annexed as Annexure – V.
9.
In 2003 Kazi’s Review Petition in
the Sikkim High Court pointed out that only 834.75 sq. ft. and not 1,628 sq.
ft. had been encroached at the back side
of the building. But the court failed to take note of this plea and upheld
its order of 2003 that the area measuring 1,628 sq. ft. of land at the back side of the building should
be vacated and handed over to government for construction of banquet hall. Such
a huge area of land at the back side of Kazi’s building is non-existent.
10.
Though the same facts of the actual
area of encroachment was presented to the Law Department’s Appellate Authority
it did not take note of them and upheld the earlier orders of the courts and
dismissed the petition in June 2014. Kazi came to know of the order only on
March 6, 2015.
11.
When the encroached portion of the
building was demolished on March 23, 24, 2015 the authorities failed to find
1,628 sq. ft. of encroached land at the
back side of Kazi’s building. Sketch maps and photographs show areas
demolished on all three sides of the building. (Annexure – VI)
12.
The Sikkim High Court, while
staying further demolition of the building, called for all records of the
disputed site. The records show that Kazi had not encroached 1,628 sq. ft. of
land at the back side of the building.
The encroached area of a few feet wide which is on all sides of the building is
of no use to the government. As per law the encroached portion may be
regularised as done in similar cases.
13.
There have been many judgements in
the case but justice has been denied.