A privately owned high-rise in Colaba would have security implications, the defence estate officer (DEO) had warned the then Mumbai collector Pradip Vyas in 2003.
A privately owned high-rise in Colaba would have security implications, the defence estate officer (DEO) had warned the then Mumbai collector Pradip Vyas in 2003. Vyas’ deposition before the Adarsh inquiry commission on Friday, however, revealed that he did not inform the government about the DEO’s warning.
The DEO, in a letter dated June 16, 2003, wrote to Vyas: “A high rise housing private individuals would dominate the entire army and navy areas and other sensitive installations like the TIFR.”
Commission counsel Dipan Merchant asked Vyas whether he had brought this fact to the notice of the government. The latter replied in the negative.
In another letter written by the DEO to Vyas on July 2, 2003, the DEO made a reference to the existence of an eco park named Khukri Park under the management of the local military authority (LMA). He also wrote that there were 100 trees of different sizes in the park. “I did not bring this letter to the notice of the government,” said Vyas again.
He explained that he marked the letters to the city superintendent of land records, who further marked the letters to the revenue branch. The notings of the revenue branch were not brought before the collector, and so he could not send a reply to the government.
On August 18, 2003, Ramakant Asma, joint secretary of the revenue and forest department, had written a letter to Vyas, asking him to file an ‘unambiguous report’ regarding the title of the land. “I could not provide the information because I did not get a reply from the revenue branch,” said Vyas.
He also admitted that the office of the collector was aware that the land was in the unauthorised possession of the defence department. “It is true that from the date of memorandum (July 9, 2004) up to the date of issue of property card (November 22, 2004), there was no factual change in the possession of the LMA with respect to the land,” he said. This means that the property card was issued despite the collector’s knowledge that the land was not in the possession of the state.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}