HC seeks details on Sonamarg Master Plan, land under Army

Srinagar, Dec 4: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh Wednesday sought to know about the steps taken by the authorities for revising or drafting a new Master Plan for Sonamarg and the timeline for finalising it.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M A Chowdhary also sought certain specific details regarding the authority under which the Army is holding the land in Sonamarg.

As a suo moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the preservation of the Sonmarg health resort came up for hearing on December 3, the court observed that the authorities in their compliance report had not disclosed the current status regarding the revised Master Plan or the new Master Plan.

Following this, the court sought the personal appearance of the Commissioner Secretary Tourism and Commissioner Secretary, Housing Department, and accordingly urged the Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri to ensure the presence of the officers in person or through virtual mode in the post-lunch session.

In the post-lunch session, the Special Secretary, Tourism, Mathoora Masoom, appeared in virtual mode, while the Chief Town Planner Bilkees Jeelani was present in person before the court.

They informed the court that they had already initiated the process of revising or drafting a new Master Plan.

Subsequently, the court directed the Senior AAG to file an affidavit disclosing the steps initiated for revising or drafting a new Master Plan and also the timeline for finalising it by December 5.

Meanwhile, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), T M Shamsi informed the court that a compliance report regarding the land under the occupation of the Army had been prepared but the same was yet to be filed.

A copy of the report indicating the details as regards the land under the Army’s occupation was shown to the court.

However, the bench observed that no specific information regarding the authority under which the Army was holding the land had been mentioned.

“Additionally, in the column (e) of the table, a certain parcel of land is shown as hired land, but there is no information from whom the land has been hired,” the court said, after perusing the report.

The bench asked the DSGI to file a detailed affidavit showing allotments and hired agreement letters if any by December 5, the next date of hearing.