As if the allegations of protecting her brother allegedly involved in a murder case were not enough, here comes to fore a case in which UPA’s presidential candidate Pratibha Patil.
Faces charges of ‘grabbing’ a piece of land admeasuring 25,000 square-feet for her Vidya Bharati Mahavidyalaya at Amravati
AMRAVATI: As if the allegations of protecting her brother allegedly involved in a murder case, defaulting on a Rs17 crore loan and sanctioning of huge loans to relatives from the co-operative bank run by her husband were not enough, here comes to fore a case in which UPA’s presidential candidate Pratibha Patil is accused of ‘grabbing’ a piece of land admeasuring 25,000 square-feet for her Vidya Bharati Mahavidyalaya at Amravati.
Patil’s husband Dr Devisingh Shekhawat is the Founder President of Vidya Bharati Shaikshanik Mandal, Amravati that runs this college while Patil herself was the President of the institution for some time. Presently, her son Raosaheb Shekhawat — President of the institution — runs the mandal.
Ever since the development of the huge campus of Vidya Bharati Mahavidyalaya, both Shekhawat and Patil wanted that the adjoining vacant plot be allotted to the college for its expansion. However, the ownership of the plot was with the Maharashtra Government, as it is a nazul (revenue) land.
Knowing well that the land belonged to the Revenue Department, Patil, during her stint as Amravati MP in 1995-96, sanctioned Rs36 lakh for four development works proposed on this very piece of land. But the Amravati Municipal Corporation denied her permission as the ownership of the land was with the Revenue Department.
At this point, another so-called social and sports organisation — Abhiruhi Kala Va Krida Sanstha, run by Shekhawat filed a petition in the High Court against Amravati Municipal Corporation’s decision. In 1999-2000, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ordered stay in its interim order, implying that neither the money sanctioned by Patil (Rs36 lakh) could be used elsewhere nor any construction could allowed on the land by any party unless High Court passed a final order in this connection.
Patil played another mischief, when she using her political might in 2007 got sanctioned a part of this huge plot (Sheet No 25, Plot No 15/1) measuring 25,000 square-feet to her Vidya Bharati Mahavidyalaya on lease for 15 years.
Then Amravati Collector Ravindra Jadhav did the biggest blunder by scrapping the earlier decision of sanctioning of Rs36 lakh from MP fund and sanctioned a fresh work worth Rs40 lakh on this land from her MP fund.
This was in gross violation of the 2000 HC order of granting status quo. Not just that, Jadhav’s sanction violated the norm of sanctioning money from MP fund. According to the norms set by the parliament, no MP can sanction funds for developmental works meant for institutions run by him or her or their relatives.
In this case, Patil’s MP fund had been sanctioned to the institution presently run by her son; moreover the treasurer of the institution in question was none other than her husband. Thirdly, there is an upper limit of Rs25 lakh for MP fund while in this case, then collector has given sanction to the work worth Rs40 lakh.
In a nutshell, this is all the case of land grabbing and using political might for appropriating all the misdeeds.
){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}
){kind=small}