Warehouse possession dispute erupts in Khoda's Nav Chetna Samiti; police role questioned

Ghaziabad: A dispute has surfaced over land and a warehouse at Nav Chetna Samiti in the Khoda area. Complainant Arvind Dabas alleged that the other side first blocked access around adjoining rooms by dumping soil and then moved goods into the warehouse. He further alleged that the activity took place in the presence of police, who did not intervene.

Video received from the site shows a narrow lane, a truck, a large pile of bricks and several people near construction material. No police officer can be clearly identified in the footage, and the video by itself cannot establish ownership or the legality of possession. Faces in the extracted banner frame have been obscured for privacy.

Claim that warehouse has been rented for 20 years

Dabas said the disputed warehouse stands on his land and has been rented for about 20 years to a man named Ajay Kumar, who operates a cement warehouse there. He also said Ajay Kumar is an active worker associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Dabas accused a person linked to the other side of repeatedly trying to take possession of the property. According to him, a similar attempt was made about a month ago, but police intervened at the time and removed the other side. He alleged that on this occasion goods were moved into the warehouse and the tenant's material was being taken out.

Complainants protest at police station

After the incident, members of the complainant's side reached the Khoda police station and protested. They argued that the land and warehouse have a long-standing possession and tenancy history, and that the documents and exact identity of the plot should be examined before any change is allowed.

Police cite Section 145 order

Police said the dispute between the two sides has continued for some time and that an order under Section 145 favours the other party. Dabas disputed this, claiming that the order cited by police relates to a different parcel of land and not the warehouse in question.

The two versions directly conflict over the identity of the land and the scope of the order. Ownership, possession and the parcel covered by the order will have to be determined from revenue records, the relevant order and examination by the competent authority. The complainant has alleged collusion by police, while police have described it as a longstanding dispute and cited a legal order.