THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A recent affidavit filed by the government in the Pattoor land encroachment case may open up a Pandora's box as it mentioned that a prior deed of the controversial land was a fake one. While this could even make the purchase of the land by Artech builders void and attract offences of forgery and cheating, the builder's counsel is of the view that even the government had earlier acquired land from these plots for road widening and paid compensation to its earlier owner.
According to the affidavit filed by the government on August 26, a prior deed shown in a partition deed of the controversial land registered at Chalai sub-registrar office in 1970 here was fake. A total of 1.23-acre land was registered in favour of one Rajagopalan Nair as per the partition deed and this land was later sold to Artech group in 2006. Legal sources said that though the present case before the Lok Ayukta was initiated on the basis of an allegation of the builder encroaching on the Kerala Water Authority's land, many skeletons seem to be tumbling out of the cupboard now.
"Even the inquiry report of IPS officer Jacob Thomas and advocate commission Abhijith Nambiar had also pointed out that a fake deed was used in the partition deed prior to the sale deed in favour of Artech group," said a lawyer associated with the case. Advocate Suresh Babu, who has been representing the petitioner Joy Kaitharath at the Lok Ayukta, said that the affidavit had strengthened the case further. "Apart from confirming the encroachment of ‘purmaboke’ land, the government has also confirmed the use of a fake deed for prior transaction. Hence, even the sale deed executed in favour of Artech could become void," he said.
However, Artech's counsel Abdul Kareem said that the government's present stand that a fake deed was used for a previous transaction of the land in 1970 sounded absurd as the government had earlier acquired land from the said plots in 1990 and 2006 for widening the Pattoor - Pettah and Pattor - Vanchiyoor roads and even paid compensation to its then owner. Meanwhile, a leading nationalised bank that financed the apartment-cum-shopping complex may also land in trouble as banks were supposed to finance a project only after ensuring that it was free of any legal or ownership issues.
