Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, March 31
This is yet another story of Kashmiri Pandits that brings to fore their struggle “for shelter”. Following “violence unleashed against the community”, they fled from their “home and hearth” in 1989-90, leaving behind whatever they had.
Among the displaced were Moti Lal Kharoo and other Kashmiri Pandits, who bought 200 to 300 square yards at Bahadurgarh from their savings. Kharoo’s case is that the plot was acquired and released on request. But the possession was not delivered back even after 30 years, compelling him and others to move the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In all, 14 writ petitions were filed.
Kharoo, through counsel Padamkant Dwivedi, has now moved the HC again seeking contempt proceedings against Chief Administrator of Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Ajit Balaji Joshi and another respondent. Taking up the plea, Justice BS Walia has fixed the plea for further hearing on April 5.
Justice Walia was told that the necessary formalities were completed. But their case was placed under “nazaresaani” or “objections” for want of mutation in the HSVP’s favour. It drafted a list of 188 plot-holders. Still, they were not handed over the plots purchased by them.
Going into the background of the matter, Dwivedi submitted that a Division Bench, hearing one of the 14 petitions in August 2020, had ordered: “Let the petitioners therein to be considered provisionally in the draw of lots to be held, but it will not confer any equitable right in their favour.”
Dwivedi added that the respondents were well aware of the interim order and even filed written statement. But they, vide email dated March 25 addressed to the president of the “Resident Welfare Association of Displaced Kashmiri Pandit Plot Holders”, forwarded a list of members included in the draw for the allotment of plots to the Kashmiri Pandits.
Long wait
Moti Lal Kharoo and other Kashmiri Pandits had bought 200 to 300 sq yards at Bahadurgarh from their hard-earned savings. Kharoo’s plot was acquired and released on request. But the possession was not delivered back even after 30 years, compelling him and others to move court.
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access.
Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Already a Member? Sign In Now