misappropriation of defense land bearing CTS no. 12 127719 sq. mtrs and CTS no.341 36495 Sq. mtrs and survey no. 155 at Golibar, Santacruz Mumbai suburban, Maharashtra state;

KAMLAKAR R SHENOY

2/13, ADINATH CHS, OPP ELLY KADORIE SCHOOL, MAZGAON, MUMBAI-400010.

Email address: shenoykr2001@yahoo.co.in

Mobile: 9870987359

                                                                                                                                               Date: 26.4.2012

Reference no: 19/defense/shivalik

To,  
A,K,Antony, Defense Minister of India,
N. Delhi

Sir,

Sub: misappropriation of defense land bearing CTS no. 12 127719 sq. mtrs and CTS no.341 36495 Sq. mtrs and survey no. 155 at Golibar, Santacruz Mumbai suburban, Maharashtra state;

Reg: conspiracy of ex-chief minister (Maharashtra state) ,defense officials, and officials of MHADA, SRA and state government to cause pecuniary benefits to developer shivalik Ventures with ulterior motives thereby causing wrongful loss to the defense and government of India/

1. The developer M/S shivalik ventures vide letter dt. 21.1.2008 filed an application before the Chief Minister of Maharastra state to grant permission for their proposed integrated Slum Rehabilitation Scheme at Golibar Santacruz Mumbai Suburban district. The Hon. Chief Minister without going through the contents issued direction to SRA dept

                                to please process imd.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-A is copy of the said letter dt. 21.1.2008 addressed to Chief Minister.

2. Vide letter dt. 18.2.2008 housing department directed SRA dept to process the file. The said letter was sent to SRA vide Fax with caption of very urgent.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-B is copy of the said letter dt.18.2.2008 addressed to SRA by housing dept.

3. SRA department vide letter dt. 29.3.2008 on last page has categorically noted that

     " CTS no. 12 area of 1,27,000 Sq. mtrs, survey no. 155 area of 36495 Sq. mtrs., is defense land and CTS 377 is land of Cutoms department".

     " as the property in not owned by state government the provision of section 33(10) circular 4 item no. 2.8 is not applicable. Hence to commence the SRA scheme the consent of concerned department of Central government should be obtained in advance.'

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-C is copy of the said letter dt. 91.3.2008 addressed to housing dept. by SRA.

4. Shivalik ventures vide letter dt. 21.4.2008 on page 3 submitted that

       "Option I : Transfer of land in exchange of equal value land

We shall provide the land to govt. of India in Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) in exchange of equal value land bearing CTS no. 12 of village Bandra E Mumbai Suburban district as per STR/Ready reckoner.

         Option –II: out right sale

We are willing to purchase the land bearing CTS no. 12 of village Bandra E Mumbai suburban District by paying its cost to govt. Of India as worked out as per STR rate.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-D is copy of the said letter dt. 21.4.2008 addressed to housing dept by Shivalik Ventures.

5. However, it appears that no land of equal value is handed over nor the cost of the land is given. In fact the consent of Govt. Of India is also not obtained.

6. The defense land cannot be given just like that at throw away price. If at all the public property is to be given it should have been auctioned. By just giving the same to developer there is wrongful loss of thousands of crores. The developer profit can be roughly calculated as under

1. is getting land at 25 % of ready reckner which is almost half of the market price.

2. Get 2 times more FSI than the rehab houses constructed.

3. There are commercial premises constructed.

4. He gets certain area at discount and /or free balcony and others.

5. They charge 50% loading on the carpet area.

It is therefore mandatory to auction the scheme so that the government gets share in the profit, which can be used for benefit of public at large.  

7. It is pertinent to note that

1. the rehab buildings are illegally constructed with consent and permission of Govt. of India. The Chief Minister office, SRA and MHADA officials have connived to grant permission illegally without compliance of the requiste permission of the Central govt.

2. the defense offices of Mumbai unit deliberately overlooked the illegal encroachment of defense land and allowed the construction of illegal rehab building.

3. Thus these public servants namely the office of CMO, MHADA, SRA, collect of Mumbai Suburban, Defense Mumbai estate have

1. Connived and acted in furtherance to their common dishonest intention with ulterior motives to cause wrongful loss to government of India and public authority thereby causing pecuniary gains to developer M/S Shivalik ventures.

2. Abused and misused their position as public servants

3. Disobeyed the direction of law.

4. Committed deliberate acts of omission and commission and failed to discharge their official duty and obligation diligently, thereby acting against the public interest at large.

8. It is also pertinent to note that

1. The defense land is illegally transferred in the name of MHADA. Neither MHADA, SRA, Urban Development Department nor collector could produce any documents disclosing the transfer of land by defense to MHADA.

2. The defense officials of Mumbai estate deliberately did not act diligently to cancel the property card issued in the name of MHADA, inspite of the knowledge that the defense property is transferred illegally in the name of MHADA. This further confirms the active participation of certain defense officials in the conspiracy to transfer the land to MHADA.

3. The defense officials deliberately did not make SRA and land department and state Govt. party to the suit. In the suit they should have called for

1. Land records department: to produce the document on the basis of which the defense land was transferred in the name of MHADA and how property card was issued by in the name of MHADA.

2. SRA department: the basis of which the SRA scheme was sanctioned inspite of the earlier noting in letter dt. 29.3.2008 that prior consent of concerned department of Central government should be obtained.

3. State government: to produce documents and correspondence disclosing the steps taken to take consent of the central government.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-E is copy of the RTI application and reply given by Defense authorities.

4. The defense department of Mumbai estate deliberately failed to move the Court when the illegal rehab buildings were constructed on the defense land. These acts again conclusively prove the conspiracy amongst the official of the various government departments.

5. When the Court raised objections as to why defense has not acted in the initial stage of construction The defense officials deliberately failed to bring to the knowledge of the court that it was offence committed by then officials against whom action will be initiated.

6. When the Court raised issue that the developer has incurred such big investment, it was the duty of the Counsel to bring to the knowledge of the court that the Court should be concerned

1. About the interest of public at large.

2. The inaction of certain delinquent officer should not benefit the offenders who are out to cause wrongful loss to Government.

3. The Court should take note of the illegality of the act and has no jurisdiction to see the interest of the developer who has carried out illegal construction without due compliance of law and consent of the competent authority.

4. In the event if such benefit is given to the developers it would set precedent to these offenders to connive and have huge wrongful gains by conniving with corrupt and delinquent officers.

5. It was the duty of the HON. Court to save the public property from being misappropriated and to punish the corrupt officials who have deliberately failed to discharge their official duty.

6. It is not the duty of the Hon. Court to consider the loss of investment of the offender who has used all resources with ulterior motives to cause wrongful loss to the nation and public at large.

7. The Hon. Court should set a stringent and deterrent example to such offenders who are real enemies of the nation and public at large so at to prevent further scams of public property.

1. It is therefore humbly submitted that

1. Vigilance enquiry be appointed to probe the scam.

2. All action be taken to cancel property card in the name of MHADA with land record department.

3. Senior Counsel with integrity be appointed to appear in all the matters pertaining to the aforesaid land.

4. Proceeding be initiated under provision of Prevention of corruption act and various provision of IPC against the developer and officials who have connived to cause wrongful loss to the nation.

5. Proceedings be initiated to cancel the LOI granted to the developer for violating the LOI conditions.

Thanking you.

Yours truly,

Kamlakar Shenoy

Please find annexed the copy of the RTI query and answers given by the official.

Queries

1. CTS 12 and 341: consent of the owners of land namely defense and custom department.

2. Reasons thereof and materials and provision of law relied upon to permit Shivalik ventures to construct rehab building on the defense land if no consent is obtained from the owners inspite of letter dt. 29.3.2008 specially recording that consent of central government is mandatory.

3. Name and designation of the officials who granted permission to Shivalik to develop under SRA act without obtaining permission from the owner's inspite of letter dt. 29.3.2008 specially recording that consent of central government is mandatory by SRA to Principal secretary Housing department.

4. Name and designation of the present officials who have aided and abetted by not acting as per direction of law inspite of violation committed to grant permission to Shivalik to develop under SRA act without obtaining permission from the owners inspite of letter dt. 29.3.2008 specially recording that consent of central government is mandatory.

5. Details of the alternate property handed over by Shivalik Ventures to Central government as stated in letter dt. 21.4.2008 addressed by shivalik to Principal Secretary Housing department under caption of

   

OPTION 1: TRANSFER OF LAND IN EXCHANGE OF EQUAL VALUE LAND

6. Reasons thereof and provision of law relied upon for granting permission to Shivalik Ventures to develop public property/ land on the basis of 25% of ready reckoner when extra FSI is granted to rehab the hutments without calling for tender or calling for auction.  

7. Documents disclosing transfer deed executed by Defense in favor of MHADA.

Also refer to para 7 c and 7f for questioning.