‘There were irregularities in land transfer to Lavasa’ | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jun 27, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

‘There were irregularities in land transfer to Lavasa’

Retired bureaucrat Ramesh Kumar, whose probe into the Lavasa project YP Singh has referred to while making allegations against Sharad Pawar and his family, on Thursday reiterated what he had stated in his report two years ago - that there are some basic irregularities in the hill city project.

mumbai Updated: Oct 19, 2012 01:03 IST
G. Mohiuddin Jeddy

Retired bureaucrat Ramesh Kumar, whose probe into the Lavasa project YP Singh has referred to while making allegations against Sharad Pawar and his family, on Thursday reiterated what he had stated in his report two years ago - that there are some basic irregularities in the hill city project.

Kumar, who had been additional chief secretary in the revenue department when he was asked by the state government to look into complaints about the Lavasa project, had submitted his report in July 2010, but the government did not really act on it.

The Navi Mumbai resident, who refused to name the Pawars, said: “There are three basic irregularities. First, it was government land that the Krishna Valley Development Corporation was supposed to use for irrigation purpose only. This land was transferred to Lavasa Corporation for a lease amount of Rs 3.28 lakh for a period of 30 years. That is not legal. I suggested that the government should take back the land.”

The second irregularity, Kumar said, was that around 300 hectares of land, distributed by the government to landless agriculturists, was purchased by Lavasa Corporation directly from the agriculturists. “This asset is not illegal, but 75% of the cost of land should have come to the government. But no money was paid to the government,” Kumar pointed out.

“Thirdly, there were 100 adivasi khatdaars whose land was purchased by Lavasa Corporation. The transfer of adivasi land without appropriate permission is illegal,” Kumar said.

Kumar said he was not victimised for his report “till I retired in September 2010”. However, sources said the state government did not allow him to become a judge in the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal despite a Bombay high court order in his favour.