Nation Other News 30 Mar 2016 Vigilance cautions K ...

Vigilance cautions Kerala on Seematti land deal

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Mar 30, 2016, 1:18 am IST
Updated Mar 30, 2016, 6:59 am IST
Another clause was that KMRL cannot carry out any further activities on the acquired land.
DC in these columns had reported that the government had bent rules while arriving at an agreement with Seematti.
 DC in these columns had reported that the government had bent rules while arriving at an agreement with Seematti.

Kochi: The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has recommended to the government to examine the controversial Seematti agreement to avoid any future loss for the  Kochi Metro Rail Ltd and the government. “KMRL apprehended that the inclusion of two clauses would be harmful to them. 

Therefore,  to protect the interest of KMRL,  the government may examine the agreement, “ the quick verification report submitted by Vigilance SP P.V.  Chacko said.

 

DC in these columns had reported that the government had bent rules while arriving at an agreement with Seematti. The agreement which violated the standard procedure adopted in other 400 -odd land acquisition cases stated that Seematti had   a legal right for Rs 80 lakh per cent. Another clause was that KMRL cannot carry out any further activities on the acquired land.

“The plea for a Vigilance probe is a premature one and so no further action is recommended against collector Rajamanickam or Seematti owner Beena Kannan as there is no financial loss sustained to KMRL and the government so far,  the report said.
 

 

“The quick verification did not reveal any mala fide intention or ulterior motive on the part of collector Rajamanickam. As no forcible acquisition was possible at that point of time in the absence of relevant rules, the collector had no option other than to take over the land by including the clauses as demanded by the land owner with the whole intention to protect the interest of the government and KMRL and to the best of public interest,” the Vigilance said.
 

“If the collector did not acquire the land in such a way, it would have affected the project,” the report said. The Vigilance further submitted that by incorporating the two controversial clauses,  no loss was sustained to KMRL and the government as alleged by Girish Babu, the complainant, since 80 percent of the amount,  that is ` 52 lakh  a cent,  was only given to Seematti.

 

...
Location: India, Kerala




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
-->