Puthenvelikkara land deal: Probe against ex-ministers
Kochi: The Muvattupuzha Vigilance Court on Saturday asked the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register a case against former ministers Adoor Prakash and P.K. Kunhalikutty, convict Santhosh Madhavan and B.M. Jaya Sankar, MD of RMZ Eco World, Bengaluru, on the controversial Puthenvelikkara land deal.
The government had issued an order giving exemption from the ceiling on landholding for industrial purposes and the same was withdrawn after the controversy. Enquiry commissioner and Special Judge P. Madhavan issued the directive on a complaint filed by Gireesh Babu seeking a probe alleging that Mr Jayasankar and Madhavan entered into a criminal conspiracy with the ministers to get an undue advantage of the exemption to 95.44 acres of paddy and wetlands.
Of the land, 32.41 acres are in Puthenvelikkara village in Ernakulam and the rest in Madathumpady village in Thrissur. Interestingly, the Taluk Land Board had earlier rejected their application for the same. The court held that the quick verification had revealed a lot of facts which supported the allegations. It also shows the involvement of the industries minister and only through an investigation the facts can be bared.
“The haste in which the matter was brought to the council of ministers when the same was pending with the revenue department and the way in which it got approved by cabinet casts doubts and supports the allegations,” the judge observed.
“It is revealed through the quick verification that the then revenue minister Adoor Prakash and industries minister P.K. Kunhalikutty who were involved in bringing out the order and other ministers are not directly involved with the issue."
“The cancellation of an order will not absolve the public servants from the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The fact that government has not suffered loss due to it also cannot be heard when offence was allegedly committed. Even attempt to commit an act through legal by unlawful means is also an offence and there is no need of any overt act for the same," the court held.